# $15 per hr. minimum wage?



## Woodchuck

Just got back from a trip to Hardee's drive through...I ordered 2 items...I saw the order pop up on their display...1/2 Lb thick burger,
1 large regular fries...NOT curly fries....

I got home and looked in my bag...2 items...1 big chicken sandwich, 1 small curly fries, and the ticket says I was charged $1.98 for a drink I didn't get......

So. out of two items, they made 4 errors....Wrong sandwich, wrong sized fries, wrong type of fries, charged for a drink I did not get....

I don't think a 200% error rate at anything is worth $15 per hour...


----------



## EleGirl

Well, one Hardies got it wrong, no one who works as fast food places deserves $15 an hour. 

LOL


----------



## Marc878

Minimum wage jobs are there to get you started. But there are embiciles who think working at McD's should be a career!

Nice. What's your long term goal son. 

Well I'm thinking about taking a burger flipping associates position and then retire after 30 years or so😏


----------



## unbelievable

If a non-disabled adult's labor is worth only minimum wage they have significant problems that government cannot fix. If that adult has dependents they are a victim of their own poor choices.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
If people are paid less than minimum wage the government generally has to step in to help support them. Probably more efficient overall to just pay them a reasonable wage to start with.

There is always a question of what to do with the least employable 20% of the population.


----------



## MountainRunner

Marc878 said:


> Minimum wage jobs are there to get you started. But there are embiciles who think working at McD's should be a career!


That may be, but when I was working toward my degree in Computer Science, I could go to a state college and take a full course load and the books cost more than paying for the classes.

In other words, back in 1991 when I got my degree, I obtained said degree while incurring no debt.

What has happened since then?


----------



## unbelievable

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> If people are paid less than minimum wage the government generally has to step in to help support them. Probably more efficient overall to just pay them a reasonable wage to start with.
> 
> There is always a question of what to do with the least employable 20% of the population.


A reasonable wage is a wage that accurately reflects the value of someone's labor. You know you are getting a "reasonable" wage when you agree to take the job and your employer agrees to pay you. If your labor was worth more than 7.25 an hour, you wouldn't take a job that pays that figure. A reasonable price for your car is what you could sell it for in the market you are in. A reasonable price for your house is what you could sell it for in the market you are in.

By the time one is an adult they had at least 18 years to prepare themselves for employment. In the current day, that means 18 years with fingertip access to basically all the knowledge of the world. If you see a 30 year old working for minimum wage, you are looking at someone who had three decades to learn how to do something that someone would value more than $7.25 an hour and somehow they failed to do so. I would think a reasonably motivated person in 30 years could learn to do all sorts of things that were worth greater compensation. If you end up 30 years old and you can't provide greater service for an employer than the average 16 year old, what have you been doing with those 30 years? Government has already helped you. They gave you at least 12 years of free education. They offered you an opportunity to join the Armed Forces. They built libraries you could use. They even offered scholarships, loans, and grants for college. They told you years in advance what job skills would be needed in the future. All you had to do was avail yourself of some of these and put forth a little effort. The best thing the government can do for these people is reduce programs that insulate people from the impact of their poor decisions. That have within themselves the ability to develop job skills and good work habits and they have always had that ability. They may lack the motivation. The last thing they need is a more comfortable hammock built by artificially inflated wages. Their problem isn't their salary. It's their lack of marketable job skills.


----------



## Ikaika

Woodchuck said:


> Just got back from a trip to Hardee's drive through...I ordered 2 items...I saw the order pop up on their display...1/2 Lb thick burger,
> 1 large regular fries...NOT curly fries....
> 
> I got home and looked in my bag...2 items...1 big chicken sandwich, 1 small curly fries, and the ticket says I was charged $1.98 for a drink I didn't get......
> 
> So. out of two items, they made 4 errors....Wrong sandwich, wrong sized fries, wrong type of fries, charged for a drink I did not get....
> 
> I don't think a 200% error rate at anything is worth $15 per hour...


Here is another way to look at it:

You ordered a meal that was 1,530 Calories vs what you got 1,100 Calories. Figuring you are of average activity, average BMI, male and soon to be 69, you would have had very little Calories to spare with your correct order but this way you have about 800 Calories to splurge on dessert. :grin2:


----------



## RandomDude

Must be a new worker, a screw up like that...

Then again, I still remember years ago in my moonlighting days I put out two mojitos without bacardi in them. So the customers were essentially drinking soda water. I realised it only after the customers grabbed their drinks. They errr... didn't bring it back so... guess they were too drunk to notice hehe 

Everyone makes mistakes especially when they are busy/stressed/rushed, hospitality is a tough industry, so go easy on the poor kid.


----------



## unbelievable

A $7.25 per hour worker must compete only against other people willing to work for $7.25 per hour. Raise that wage to $15 per hour and suddenly, that worker must compete against everybody willing to work for $15.00 per hour. It's cute how existing $7.25 per hour workers believe they will be the ones receiving that $15 per hour. Their employer is going to hire the most qualified workers he can get for $15 an hour. We only have a 62% labor force participation rate. An awful lot of people aren't in the workplace. $15.00 per hour will be enough to get people with substantial work experience, management experience, and even college graduates off the couch. You and your 10th grade drop-out self are going to compete against them?

Maybe you were the best candidate out of three applicants. Think you would be the best out of 100 applicants? While we're at it, are you doing something a machine or a computer could do? Customers are already pouring their own drinks. Can't they punch that button with the picture of a burger on it just as easily as you can? Any reason they can't put their own sandwich in a paper sack?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Call the establishment and complain - state what happens.. chances are , they will gladly offer you some free coupons for the screw up. 

I've worked in some fast food in my younger years.. I loved the RUSH of customers.. time flew.... but even the best of employees can have a screw up now & then.. customers need to complain.. if it's a bad apple, such employees need weeded out.. if it's a one time lapse of judgement...well it happens. 

The company needs to make it right though.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Our minimum wage is over $17. Everyone who works should earn a decent living wage no matter what they do. Some people unfortunately haven't had the opportunity or funds to study further, but no matter the reason, I thnk people should be paid correctly and decently and instead of making say $10 billion PA a company might make 9. Only fair as they wouldn't make any profits without the hard work of the employees.


----------



## seasalt

I've always wondered and no one has given me an answer about the person who started at minimum wage four or five years ago and worked their way up to $15.05/hr. What do you say to them when someone is hired to basically take up space and get $15.00/hr?

???,

Seasalt


----------



## optimalprimus

Marc878 said:


> Minimum wage jobs are there to get you started. But there are embiciles who think working at McD's should be a career!
> 
> Nice. What's your long term goal son.
> 
> Well I'm thinking about taking a burger flipping associates position and then retire after 30 years or so😏


In principle yes. I don't think this fits with the pattern of employment opportunities in the western world

Lousy v lovely jobs is worth a google if you're genuinely interested in labour economics.

Minimum wages have a role but can also cause unemployment, particularly amongst young people with fewer marketable skills.


----------



## Holland

The cost of living must be very cheap in America for people to be paid anything less than $15hr.

And who doesn't check what they are given at the drive through before they leave?


----------



## unbelievable

*LittleDeer* said:


> Our minimum wage is over $17. Everyone who works should earn a decent living wage no matter what they do. Some people unfortunately haven't had the opportunity or funds to study further, but no matter the reason, I thnk people should be paid correctly and decently and instead of making say $10 billion PA a company might make 9. Only fair as they wouldn't make any profits without the hard work of the employees.


Your labor is your labor. You are free to sell your labor for any sum you wish (in excess of the current minimum). If these people believe they are worth $17.00 per hour they should quit their $7.25 per hour jobs and sell their labor for what it's worth. They applied for minimum wage jobs because their skills would not warrant greater pay. If they have worked for minimum wage over a few months it's because they haven't used that time to convince their employer that their labor was worth more. 

Who hasn't had the opportunity to go to school or visit a library? Basic education is actually required in the United States. Most illegal aliens I've met have very little verifiable education and limited English skills but they aren't working for minimum wage. Did they have greater "opportunity" than a native born American citizen?


----------



## unbelievable

Holland said:


> The cost of living must be very cheap in America for people to be paid anything less than $15hr.
> 
> And who doesn't check what they are given at the drive through before they leave?


Minimum wage was never intended to support a family. That is an entry level wage intended for kids who have no job skills. The lowest rung on the ladder is not a career goal. It's a starting point. Since the goal of minimum wage isn't to support a family, the cost of living is irrelevant. Those jobs are for kids without skills to develop good work habits. Their parents provide their basic support.


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> Minimum wage was never intended to support a family. That is an entry level wage intended for kids who have no job skills. The lowest rung on the ladder is not a career goal. It's a starting point. Since the goal of minimum wage isn't to support a family, the cost of living is irrelevant. Those jobs are for kids without skills to develop good work habits. Their parents provide their basic support.


My teenagers make more than $15 hr. My role as a parent is to raise them with good morals and a decent work ethic. These jobs are generally done by students as entry level jobs into the world. 
Their cost of living is relevant because while I support their basic needs they can support their own leisure and travel needs.

No wonder America has a problem with the working poor, people are working for subsistence wages.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

unbelievable said:


> Your labor is your labor. You are free to sell your labor for any sum you wish (in excess of the current minimum). If these people believe they are worth $17.00 per hour they should quit their $7.25 per hour jobs and sell their labor for what it's worth. They applied for minimum wage jobs because their skills would not warrant greater pay. If they have worked for minimum wage over a few months it's because they haven't used that time to convince their employer that their labor was worth more.
> 
> Who hasn't had the opportunity to go to school or visit a library? Basic education is actually required in the United States. Most illegal aliens I've met have very little verifiable education and limited English skills but they aren't working for minimum wage. Did they have greater "opportunity" than a native born American citizen?



The difference between you and I is I don't believe I'm better than nor do I place myself at a higher value than fast food workers or anyone else. 

I'm just lucky enough to live in a country that has allowed me to further my education and I empathise with others here and OS who have not been able to do so, for whatever reason. 

And for people who are happy working those jobs I appreciate them, because I can go an buy a burger when I don't feel like cooking or so,e Indian food. I appreciate the work. It might not take the skill set I have learned but it's another skill set and it is needed. If it wasn't there wouldn't be so many resturaunts and take away places. Thus it should be valued accordingly, it's very much in demand.


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> Minimum wage was never intended to support a family. That is an entry level wage intended for kids who have no job skills. The lowest rung on the ladder is not a career goal. It's a starting point. Since the goal of minimum wage isn't to support a family, the cost of living is irrelevant. Those jobs are for kids without skills to develop good work habits. Their parents provide their basic support.


Your theory (which is internally sound) does not however fit with reality. You're not going to have anything interesting to say unless you bridge this gap with some more education on the issue. 

In the UK, 20-25% of jobs pay less than the 'living wage', an amount higher than the statutory minimum wage but calculated to be what is needed for a decent standard of living. The level of course is up for debate. But it clearly isn't a small percentage of jobs at entry level that people should easily be able to beat.

http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-...-the-uk/art-london-analysis.html#tab-abstract

In the UK the big debate right now is whether to increase the minimum wage alongside cutting the govt. support for low income households in work. This support had expanded hugely over the last 20 years, partly due to govt policy, but also due to changes in labour demand as economic progress and globalisation drives polarisation of jobs. It is actually quite a healthy informed debate and worth a look.

If you're not interested thats fine of course. You can always stay an entry level analyst.


----------



## unbelievable

optimalprimus said:


> Your theory (which is internally sound) does not however fit with reality. You're not going to have anything interesting to say unless you bridge this gap with some more education on the issue.
> 
> In the UK, 20-25% of jobs pay less than the 'living wage', an amount higher than the statutory minimum wage but calculated to be what is needed for a decent standard of living. The level of course is up for debate. But it clearly isn't a small percentage of jobs at entry level that people should easily be able to beat.
> 
> http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-...-the-uk/art-london-analysis.html#tab-abstract
> 
> In the UK the big debate right now is whether to increase the minimum wage alongside cutting the govt. support for low income households in work. This support had expanded hugely over the last 20 years, partly due to govt policy, but also due to changes in labour demand as economic progress and globalisation drives polarisation of jobs. It is actually quite a healthy informed debate and worth a look.
> 
> If you're not interested thats fine of course. You can always stay an entry level analyst.


What does the U.K. living wage have to do with the minimum wage laws of the United States?


----------



## unbelievable

*LittleDeer* said:


> The difference between you and I is I don't believe I'm better than nor do I place myself at a higher value than fast food workers or anyone else.
> 
> I'm just lucky enough to live in a country that has allowed me to further my education and I empathise with others here and OS who have not been able to do so, for whatever reason.
> 
> And for people who are happy working those jobs I appreciate them, because I can go an buy a burger when I don't feel like cooking or so,e Indian food. I appreciate the work. It might not take the skill set I have learned but it's another skill set and it is needed. If it wasn't there wouldn't be so many resturaunts and take away places. Thus it should be valued accordingly, it's very much in demand.


Don't believe I've ever suggested I was better than anyone else. I also don't presume that people are helpless or stupid. I've worked minimum wage jobs. I've actually worked for less than legal minimum wage. The job fairy didn't whack me with her magic wand. No bureaucrat or condescending Liberal came and rescued me from my minimum wage employment. I did what was necessary to develop better skills and I got better employment. 

Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and you know what else will be in demand? Robotic fast food kiosks. If the government mandated that you could spend no less than $30 for a meal, would you eat at McDonald's? People will go where they get the greatest value for their money. Employers are no different. If the price of labor exceeds the price of automation, the employees are going to be out of work. 
If an employer has to pay $15 an hour, he's not going to be putting up with a $7.25 an hour employee who comes in tardy twice a week, forgets to put napkins in the bag, has a criminal record and a surly attitude. A lot of the people you wish to help will be out of work. 

Who else earns minimum wage? How about child care workers?
Consider the mom who earns $18.00 an hour and pays roughly $8.00 an hour for child care. That extra $10 an hour makes it worth her while to work. How many of those moms will decide that $3.00 an hour isn't worth working? Only about 56% of working age women are in the work force, now. You want to drop that to 49%?

What sort of people are customers at McDonald's and Hardee's? Rich people? Hardly. Those outfits will necessarily have to raise their prices. Who will actually be paying for us to double the wages of minimum wage employees? It'll mostly come from the pockets of the poor and lower middle class, the very people you wish to help.


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> Don't believe I've ever suggested I was better than anyone else. I also don't presume that people are helpless or stupid. I've worked minimum wage jobs. I've actually worked for less than legal minimum wage. The job fairy didn't whack me with her magic wand. No bureaucrat or condescending Liberal came and rescued me from my minimum wage employment. I did what was necessary to develop better skills and I got better employment.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and you know what else will be in demand? Robotic fast food kiosks. If the government mandated that you could spend no less than $30 for a meal, would you eat at McDonald's? People will go where they get the greatest value for their money. Employers are no different. If the price of labor exceeds the price of automation, the employees are going to be out of work.
> If an employer has to pay $15 an hour, he's not going to be putting up with a $7.25 an hour employee who comes in tardy twice a week, forgets to put napkins in the bag, has a criminal record and a surly attitude. A lot of the people you wish to help will be out of work.
> 
> Who else earns minimum wage? How about child care workers?
> Consider the mom who earns $18.00 an hour and pays roughly $8.00 an hour for child care. That extra $10 an hour makes it worth her while to work. How many of those moms will decide that $3.00 an hour isn't worth working? Only about 56% of working age women are in the work force, now. You want to drop that to 49%?
> 
> What sort of people are customers at McDonald's and Hardee's? Rich people? Hardly. Those outfits will necessarily have to raise their prices. Who will actually be paying for us to double the wages of minimum wage employees? It'll mostly come from the pockets of the poor and lower middle class, the very people you wish to help.


Childcare workers should not be getting minimum wage, they are hopefully NOT Uni students working for beer money. Childcare workers hold a great responsibility, here they are trained and generally need qualifications and first aid certs. 

Fast food places here are thriving, staff are paid double what your minimum wage is and the sky hasn't fallen.


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> What does the U.K. living wage have to do with the minimum wage laws of the United States?


We've been here before. Educate yourself or continue to offer very limited insights of the issues - it is up to you.


----------



## Woodchuck

Holland said:


> The cost of living must be very cheap in America for people to be paid anything less than $15hr.
> 
> And who doesn't check what they are given at the drive through before they leave?


Well, it was pitch dark, there were 2 items in the sack, and a car behind me, wanting HIS order...So basically I F****D up...

I trusted them....

I guess I will go back today, and apologize for MY screw up....I should probably tip him a buck, to sweeten the $2.00 he got for the coke I didn't get....


----------



## Woodchuck

Ikaika said:


> Here is another way to look at it:
> 
> You ordered a meal that was 1,530 Calories vs what you got 1,100 Calories. Figuring you are of average activity, average BMI, male and soon to be 69, you would have had very little Calories to spare with your correct order but this way you have about 800 Calories to splurge on dessert. :grin2:


Unfortunately, I only had toast and coffee for breakfast, at 6:00 AM, and spent the day moving guns and gun safes into the house, and sorting and shredding documents....I made a run into town to pick up the wife's prescriptions and mail a letter....So by the time I stopped at the drive thru window at 6:00 PM I was ready for a burger and fries, calories be damned....>


----------



## Woodchuck

optimalprimus said:


> We've been here before. Educate yourself or continue to offer very limited insights of the issues - it is up to you.


You almost got it right....In reality, the minimum wage worker should be told.....

Educate yourself or continue to be offered very limited wages and opportunities for promotion...It is up to you


----------



## Woodchuck

MountainRunner said:


> That may be, but when I was working toward my degree in Computer Science, I could go to a state college and take a full course load and the books cost more than paying for the classes.
> 
> In other words, back in 1991 when I got my degree, I obtained said degree while incurring no debt.
> 
> What has happened since then?


Student loans have been turned into an industry....And a basic liberal arts degree has been exposed as useless....Millions of students are going into serious debt to go to school to study something that will not help them pay off that debt....


----------



## Woodchuck

Holland said:


> Childcare workers should not be getting minimum wage, they are hopefully NOT Uni students working for beer money. Childcare workers hold a great responsibility, here they are trained and generally need qualifications and first aid certs.
> 
> Fast food places here are thriving, staff are paid double what your minimum wage is and the sky hasn't fallen.


It would be great if 20 or so working moms would get together, pool their funds, and pay number of them to watch the kids while the rest worked...Sort of a day care co-op.....I would be willing to bet, government regs. would shut it down...


----------



## Woodchuck

*LittleDeer* said:


> Our minimum wage is over $17. Everyone who works should earn a decent living wage no matter what they do. Some people unfortunately haven't had the opportunity or funds to study further, but no matter the reason, I thnk people should be paid correctly and decently and instead of making say $10 billion PA a company might make 9. Only fair as they wouldn't make any profits without the hard work of the employees.


So no matter how lazy, indolent, defiant, and willful, they should be given wages that will allow them to live in comfort.....Because they CHOSE to hang out on the corner with their friends rather than avail themselves of a free education..

Let the share holders in the company unfortunate enough to hire them pick up the slack...Or better still. pass it on to the consumer...


----------



## Woodchuck

Holland said:


> My teenagers make more than $15 hr. My role as a parent is to raise them with good morals and a decent work ethic. These jobs are generally done by students as entry level jobs into the world.
> Their cost of living is relevant because while I support their basic needs they can support their own leisure and travel needs.
> 
> No wonder America has a problem with the working poor, people are working for subsistence wages.


And in your country, *THEY JUST GO ON THE DOLE....
*


----------



## Woodchuck

intheory said:


> I agree with a better minimum wage; but the way the economy works, a higher minimum wage won't solve the problem.
> 
> Companies are not going to give up high-as-possible profits. So, they will pass the cost of minimum wage on to customers.
> 
> My state has an almost $10/hr. minimum wage. I swear in the past couple of years since, everything has gone up a couple of dollars.


You are correct. The min. wage is a tax, it is just collected by a company instead of the government....

Stock holders in a company constantly press for higher profits...The company doesn't keep the profits, they grow the business, and pay shareholders...

If the shareholders press for X return, and a government mandated wage hike cuts into profits, the company WILL raise prices to maintain profits....There is no free lunch...Thus the extra couple of bucks you are paying...


----------



## Woodchuck

I spent 30 years designing tooling and automation....As I was eating my BIG CHICKEN, and curly fries, I was designing a fully automated fast food drive thru...

In the plastic injection molding industry they have "LIGHTS OUT" factories...Entire plants full of molding machines turning out product without any people at all....Thus the term "LIGHTS OUT"...A technician monitors the processes in a control booth....on site of off site. He monitors the machines and looks at porn on the internet....The entire plant is in the dark, making money...


----------



## Blondilocks

I'm getting the feeling that it's Americans vs European Socialist economies. I'll stick with America's way of doing things which works fine when people understand that minimum wage jobs are not career builders. Besides if adults were taking those jobs, where would high school students get a crack at earning a little money and learning how to be an employee?

Woodchuck, can you image the look on the patron's face who got your order?


----------



## Ikaika

Blondilocks said:


> I'm getting the feeling that it's Americans vs European Socialist economies. I'll stick with America's way of doing things which works fine when people understand that minimum wage jobs are not career builders. Besides if adults were taking those jobs, where would high school students get a crack at earning a little money and learning how to be an employee?
> 
> 
> 
> Woodchuck, can you image the look on the patron's face who got your order?



Or the difference between monopolized corporate food industry (America) that fixes prices and wages. And, the predominantly small business (mom and pop) food vendors that focus on quality over caloric poor tasting quantity (Europe), true customer competition.


----------



## Woodchuck

Blondilocks said:


> I'm getting the feeling that it's Americans vs European Socialist economies. I'll stick with America's way of doing things which works fine when people understand that minimum wage jobs are not career builders. Besides if adults were taking those jobs, where would high school students get a crack at earning a little money and learning how to be an employee?
> 
> Woodchuck, can you image the look on the patron's face who got your order?


Well, Since there was only one other person in the queue, I at least got to see his car...


----------



## optimalprimus

Blondilocks said:


> I'm getting the feeling that it's Americans vs European Socialist economies. I'll stick with America's way of doing things which works fine when people understand that minimum wage jobs are not career builders. Besides if adults were taking those jobs, where would high school students get a crack at earning a little money and learning how to be an employee?
> 
> Woodchuck, can you image the look on the patron's face who got your order?


You're getting the wrong feeling then. Actually the practice of national minimum wage originated in the US. The 'socialist' uk didnt get one until 1999. And it is a right wing government who have announced an increase in it, very recently.

The 20th percentile of the US hourlywage distribution is around $10. I choose 20 % because this is clearly not relevant to a small group of 16-21 year olds just starting out and making up around 5% of the labour force (grateful if anyone has the actual figure. These are jobs that some people will be doing their whole lives.


----------



## seasalt

Is there anyone out there besides me who is old enough to say they enjoyed and miss the Horn&Hardart's? It seems that's where we're headed and I for one can't wait.

Just sayin',

Seasalt


----------



## thebirdman

MountainRunner said:


> That may be, but when I was working toward my degree in Computer Science, I could go to a state college and take a full course load and the books cost more than paying for the classes.
> 
> In other words, back in 1991 when I got my degree, I obtained said degree while incurring no debt.
> 
> What has happened since then?


Good question. I have zero college education. My wife has lots of college education. I make substantially more money than she does. Without me, I would be surprised if she could afford to pay for the education to get the job that she has. Granted, she loves what she does but how can people be expected to start careers with low wages or in flooded markets with a mountain of debt weighing them down?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

unbelievable said:


> A reasonable wage is a wage that accurately reflects the value of someone's labor. You know you are getting a "reasonable" wage when you agree to take the job and your employer agrees to pay you. If your labor was worth more than 7.25 an hour, you wouldn't take a job that pays that figure. A reasonable price for your car is what you could sell it for in the market you are in. A reasonable price for your house is what you could sell it for in the market you are in.
> 
> By the time one is an adult they had at least 18 years to prepare themselves for employment. In the current day, that means 18 years with fingertip access to basically all the knowledge of the world. If you see a 30 year old working for minimum wage, you are looking at someone who had three decades to learn how to do something that someone would value more than $7.25 an hour and somehow they failed to do so. I would think a reasonably motivated person in 30 years could learn to do all sorts of things that were worth greater compensation. If you end up 30 years old and you can't provide greater service for an employer than the average 16 year old, what have you been doing with those 30 years? Government has already helped you. They gave you at least 12 years of free education. They offered you an opportunity to join the Armed Forces. They built libraries you could use. They even offered scholarships, loans, and grants for college. They told you years in advance what job skills would be needed in the future. All you had to do was avail yourself of some of these and put forth a little effort. The best thing the government can do for these people is reduce programs that insulate people from the impact of their poor decisions. That have within themselves the ability to develop job skills and good work habits and they have always had that ability. They may lack the motivation. The last thing they need is a more comfortable hammock built by artificially inflated wages. Their problem isn't their salary. It's their lack of marketable job skills.


I had wonderful school teachers who did everything _BUT_ prepare people for the real world.

As for government... you speak crap, to call a spade a spade. They pay themselves plenty to steal the resources to run schools etc in massive hierarchical systems paying more and more for people who have less and less value. all out of money extracted forcefully from the population with no real say in the way things are run. Unlike a private business - where if the job is poor you go elsewhere ... don't like your fastfood.. go elsewhere or cook your own - at least there you can vote with your feet, the dreadful crap schooling system and government hogs trough, they beat and kidnap you if you don't pay what they demand.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

intheory said:


> I agree with a better minimum wage; but the way the economy works, a higher minimum wage won't solve the problem.
> 
> Companies are not going to give up high-as-possible profits. So, they will pass the cost of minimum wage on to customers.
> 
> My state has an almost $10/hr. minimum wage. I swear in the past couple of years since, everything has gone up a couple of dollars.


Of course everything has "gone up a few dollars"

An efficiently running business will have little wastage to clean up for extra money to pay cheap labor. An efficient, competitive real business will be exposed to Porters 5 forces - price pressure from suppliers, customers, pricing pressure to make competitive product that people will buy, while constantly having to defend their market against other business wanting to push in (eg pizza to burgers, fast food to healthy, organic to healthy), and there will be competition with the industry. The easiest competitive point is to reduce the sticker price, so margins are always slim.

Investors are also a market. Business is risky, they could lose all their investment, some even have their houses, retirement funds, and even friends and families assets at risk ... so they do reasonably expect to show a better after tax return that a Fixed Term Bank Deposit. If you do not believe me, then I have some "investment" portfolios with which I expect you to prove what you say...

So that means margins are tight.
You pay the person on minimum wage more, then everyone on the chain wants more, otherwise more of them end up on minimum wage.
And all of them pay taxes, as they get more the taxes are more.
Where does the extra money come from in an efficient business?
If the wage bill is growing, and competitive force hold the price cap, then either services get cut, people get cut, or prices (and sales tax) go up.
And it is the low end business that poor people shop at, that are affected most.

The stupid thing... the slight rise that a minimum wage person gets?
Usually only about enough a week to get one fast food meal...


----------



## Anonymous07

intheory said:


> I agree with a better minimum wage; but the way the economy works, a higher minimum wage won't solve the problem.
> 
> Companies are not going to give up high-as-possible profits. So, they will pass the cost of minimum wage on to customers.
> 
> My state has an almost $10/hr. minimum wage. I swear in the past couple of years since, everything has gone up a couple of dollars.


The other issue is that the small mom and pop type shops can't afford to pay all of their employees a higher minimum wage. When you hike up the minimum wage to $15, a lot of small businesses will have to close. I know in my area, several small businesses have been forced to close because they just can't afford it. My aunt had to close her restaurant that had been around for 75 years because they just couldn't survive in this economy. It wasn't about profits for the small companies, but because they just don't have the money.


----------



## Ikaika

Anonymous07 said:


> The other issue is that the small mom and pop type shops can't afford to pay all of their employees a higher minimum wage. When you hike up the minimum wage to $15, a lot of small businesses will have to close. I know in my area, several small businesses have been forced to close because they just can't afford it. My aunt had to close her restaurant that had been around for 75 years because they just couldn't survive in this economy. It wasn't about profits for the small companies, but because they just don't have the money.



In our state, less than 10 full time employees, they don't have to pay the mandatory minimum wage. Most do anyway since we have low unemployment and there is competition for these low-wage service positions.


----------



## Holland

Woodchuck said:


> And in your country, *THEY JUST GO ON THE DOLE....
> *


Not true at all, we have Newstart which is not just handed out without meeting tough criteria. It is true we have an excellent Govt. safety system here for people that cannot find employment or find themselves unemployed but it is not a lifestyle choice.
We have disability support which is what someone who is unable to work due to physical or mental health issues receives.
Our overall unemployment levels are quite low and our standard of living is very high due to fair rates of pay.


----------



## Anonymous07

Ikaika said:


> In our state, less than 10 full time employees, they don't have to pay the mandatory minimum wage. Most do anyway since we have low unemployment and there is competition for these low-wage service positions.


That doesn't work for many situations though. 

My aunt's restaurant as an example:
She didn't want to raise her prices a bunch in order to afford paying her employees because it would run off a lot of her customers. Many were retired who ate there and are on a fixed income, so they would be gone and her restaurant would eventually close anyways. If she cut back on employees, which she tried, she ran into scheduling problems and being short staffed. Again losing customers, this time from not getting the same service even though they are really trying. 

It is hard as it is for small businesses, but when you suddenly make everyone pay employees a higher minimum wage, it can be too much for smaller companies.


----------



## Ikaika

Anonymous07 said:


> That doesn't work for many situations though.
> 
> 
> 
> My aunt's restaurant as an example:
> 
> She didn't want to raise her prices a bunch in order to afford paying her employees because it would run off a lot of her customers. Many were retired who ate there and are on a fixed income, so they would be gone and her restaurant would eventually close anyways. If she cut back on employees, which she tried, she ran into scheduling problems and being short staffed. Again losing customers, this time from not getting the same service even though they are really trying.
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard as it is for small businesses, but when you suddenly make everyone pay employees a higher minimum wage, it can be too much for smaller companies.



It is the conundrum - We don't have a minimum wage, and workers can't make living wage. The working poor who have to be on some form of a safety net. 

- Raise minimum wage and employers have to raise prices which may repel some of the customer base. Repel customer base and owner either loses their own wages or not enough business income to have a positive balance sheet.


----------



## RandomDude

Hospitality labor in my country, is very expensive due to the minimum wage. Service suffers as a result as businesses often cut labor and even sometimes resort to hiring illegals and paying them peanuts cash in hand. The only real money when it comes to hospitality is through functions and events, not all businesses can capitalise on that however. They pay me thousands of dollars for my services, and it's enough that my prices remain constant and I pay my permanent staff above the award wages and have enough to fund expansion and renovation projects, and my own boat... but I'm one of the fortunate ones.

But that's B2B, how about the common folks who just want to come in for a night out or a meal? I don't make much profit in my ala carte outlets, or even the bars (not to mention the liquor licenses already cost me to even be allowed to sell it). If it wasn't for functions and events I would not be able to sustain it let alone provide for my family as a sole provider when I was married. How do the ethnic restaurants get away with it? Their whole FAMILY works!

Just some insight... it's an industry I do not recommend to others unless they really know what they are doing.


----------



## Woodchuck

Holland said:


> Not true at all, we have Newstart which is not just handed out without meeting tough criteria. It is true we have an excellent Govt. safety system here for people that cannot find employment or find themselves unemployed but it is not a lifestyle choice.
> We have disability support which is what someone who is unable to work due to physical or mental health issues receives.
> Our overall unemployment levels are quite low and our standard of living is very high due to fair rates of pay.



Read Theodore Dalrymple?s ?Life at the Bottom? online for free | WINTERY KNIGHT

Dalrymple paints quite a different picture of life in the U.K. 

Rampant drug use, crime, police indifference, and helpeless citizens, unarmed and living at the mercy of the huge criminal underclass....

And children being raped and prostituted at the hands of Muslim thugs...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal


----------



## Ikaika

intheory said:


> A married couple both making the minimum wage full time can make a living if they share a lightly used car; live in a one-bedroom apartment, and don't have children, or take out student loans, or run up credit card debt. They may even be able to save a little.
> 
> 
> 
> But what would happen to the economy if that became the normal scenario? Or, even just a lot more prevalent?



Maybe where you live. The median rent on a two-bedroom apartment here is $1,530/month. And, that is just housing.


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> It is the conundrum - We don't have a minimum wage, and workers can't make living wage. The working poor who have to be on some form of a safety net.
> 
> - Raise minimum wage and employers have to raise prices which may repel some of the customer base. Repel customer base and owner either loses their own wages or not enough business income to have a positive balance sheet.


There was a United States before mandatory minimum wage and people made a living here. Even now, fewer than 4% actually earn minimum wage. In a free country there will always be the poor and struggling because free people sometimes make mistakes. If someone wants to half-step and not improve their labor value that is their right just as it is their right to live outdoors. If you could hand $100K to every poor person, a few months later, many of them would be penniless again, because for most, it's not a money problem, a luck problem, a race problem, an intelligence problem or an ability problem, it's a problem with their own life choices. I can go into a fast food joint and very quickly point out the workers who will soon be making more money and those who will still be in the same position five years from now. Our goal should not be to make adults more comfortable doing children's work. Creating more decent jobs for blue collar adults where they would perform grown-up service for grown-up wages would be my plan.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> There was a United States before mandatory minimum wage and people made a living here. Even now, fewer than 4% actually earn minimum wage. In a free country there will always be the poor and struggling because free people sometimes make mistakes. If someone wants to half-step and not improve their labor value that is their right just as it is their right to live outdoors. If you could hand $100K to every poor person, a few months later, many of them would be penniless again, because for most, it's not a money problem, a luck problem, a race problem, an intelligence problem or an ability problem, it's a problem with their own life choices. I can go into a fast food joint and very quickly point out the workers who will soon be making more money and those who will still be in the same position five years from now. Our goal should not be to make adults more comfortable doing children's work. Creating more decent jobs for blue collar adults where they would perform grown-up service for grown-up wages would be my plan.



http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf

So your 4% is based on $7.25/hour

http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Taxpayers-and-Walmart-ATF.pdf


----------



## soccermom2three

All that's going to happen is minimum wage workers hours are going to be reduced to make up for the raise in the hourly wage. Lines in fast foods and retail stores are going to be longer because they will have less staff working to save money. They already have kiosks in fast food restaurants were you can order and pay for the food.


----------



## Woodchuck

intheory said:


> A married couple both making the minimum wage full time can make a living if they share a lightly used car; live in a one-bedroom apartment, and don't have children, or take out student loans, or run up credit card debt. They may even be able to save a little.
> 
> But what would happen to the economy if that became the normal scenario? Or, even just a lot more prevalent?


My DIL was a burger flipper at McD's....And like I have said elsewhere, show up on time, act like you are interested, learn EVERYONES job, and you will advance....She now manages a franchise...Two married McD's *managers *can live quite comfortably....


----------



## unbelievable

intheory said:


> A married couple both making the minimum wage full time can make a living if they share a lightly used car; live in a one-bedroom apartment, and don't have children, or take out student loans, or run up credit card debt. They may even be able to save a little.
> 
> But what would happen to the economy if that became the normal scenario? Or, even just a lot more prevalent?


If I couldn't support a wife and at least one kid on my own salary, I wouldn't be getting married. If I were a young lady I don't believe I'd find a minimum wage employee an ideal marriage partner. What happens if she gets sick or pregnant?


----------



## unbelievable

I want things too. Everybody does. I suspect you want things you can't afford. We all experience emotions but we don't have to be slaves to them. My emotions aren't a license for me to engage in reckless behavior that places a burden on my neighbors. They can be an incentive for me to work harder, longer, study, take risks, sacrifice, etc so I can afford my desires. How much could a man love a woman if he was willing to deliberately place her in a position of insecurity and privation? You know, back when I was a foolish kid, I got married when I could ill afford to do so. Rather than make demands of my employer or my government to compensate for my foolishness, I worked two full-time, low-wage jobs and went to Paramedic school at the same time. Didn't see my wife all that often but it was clear to me that my financial future was my business and taking care of my wife was my business. Had some tender hearted Liberal came along and handed me $15 an hour, I might still be working for minimum wage, considering myself to be some sort of victim, and looking for new ways to pick the pockets of my innocent neighbors. I'm really grateful they weren't around back then to chain me to a low-skill job.


----------



## Woodchuck

Have you ever met a man who was too lazy to attend school, or too prideful to hold a job, spent his time drinking beer, and playing cards, kept his wife pregnant to keep her out of his way, and then didn't even show up when she was in the delivery room.....Who stole from family and friends, and dodged every obligation life placed in his hands? Would useless describe such a person?


----------



## Holland

Woodchuck said:


> Read Theodore Dalrymple?s ?Life at the Bottom? online for free | WINTERY KNIGHT
> 
> Dalrymple paints quite a different picture of life in the U.K.
> 
> Rampant drug use, crime, police indifference, and helpeless citizens, unarmed and living at the mercy of the huge criminal underclass....
> 
> And children being raped and prostituted at the hands of Muslim thugs...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal


I really hope that you know the UK and Australia are two different countries :surprise:

Your links which I have not/will not read are completely irrelevant. In Australia we have a reasonable min wage of twice yours AND we have an excellent standard of living. Free/cheap medical, low cost education for those that chose that option, Govt. support for those in need, great lifestyle with unlimited choices for dining out, entertainment, leisure etc.

There is good and bad everywhere but overall life is very good here, good wages and iifestyle.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

Holland said:


> My teenagers make more than $15 hr. My role as a parent is to raise them with good morals and a decent work ethic. These jobs are generally done by students as entry level jobs into the world.
> Their cost of living is relevant because while I support their basic needs they can support their own leisure and travel needs.
> 
> No wonder America has a problem with the working poor, people are working for subsistence wages.


What do your teenagers do? Is it technical work or is it something that anyone can do?

I didn't make more than $15 an hour until this year, and I have a Master's degree. Even after I got a promotion, because the position was on a flat salary and I worked many hours, I wasn't making more than $15 an hour if I were to do the math.

What is the going rate for an electrician where you are? For an OEM certified car mechanic?


----------



## unbelievable

intheory said:


> Sure. But couldn't your wife have worked one full time job, so that you didn't have to double down with the multiple jobs, and learning to be an EMT?
> 
> Why were/are you responsible for everything? Aren't you about 54 years old? So, your generation is one that accepts that women can work full time outside the home.


We don't all think with the same brain so I can't speak for everyone in my age group. Common sense would inform any male determined to get married that it's possible (even likely) that his wife is going to get pregnant and he will have to shoulder the bills for a time. Once babies start showing up someone needs to care for them. That duty would best be performed by a parent. 

I can't get pregnant and I can't breastfeed so it makes logistical sense for me to plan on putting groceries on the table, at times, alone. That's not an emergency but a normal fact of life and it would make sense for one to prepare accordingly. In my current situation, for example, my wife had a full time job when I married her. She no longer does nor does she have any other means of support. If my financial plan included depending on her to pay bills, we'd both be in a world of hurt. As it stands, we both are taken care of and without picking anyone's pocket. 
Another part of my plan is to have no more bills than I could comfortably pay even I became injured and had to live on disability. It also includes maintaining life insurance so my wife gets to keep on eating and living under a decent roof if I go to my eternal reward. 
I've been married a couple times before but never to a woman who remained consistently gainfully employed. It would be foolish of me to depend on one for my family's financial security. If my wife works and brings in some extra bread, that's wonderful, but whether she does or not, my obligations will be met, my kids will eat, bills I promised to pay will be paid. 
Ever since time began, I think it has been clear to anyone born with a penis, that they were expected to work to support their family. My mom hasn't always worked outside the home, my grandmother didn't, none of my four brother's wives have. I believe that even most "career" women have periods of unpaid absence from their work.


----------



## Holland

ExiledBayStater said:


> What do your teenagers do? Is it technical work or is it something that anyone can do?
> 
> I didn't make more than $15 an hour until this year, and I have a Master's degree. Even after I got a promotion, because the position was on a flat salary and I worked many hours, I wasn't making more than $15 an hour if I were to do the math.
> 
> What is the going rate for an electrician where you are? For an OEM certified car mechanic?


Two work PT while studying, both in service areas, fast food and supermarket. 

I have no idea what an Electrician makes here but all the ones I know of would be on 6 figures as they independently own their businesses. 

We also have compulsory Superannuation paid by the employer at around 10%.Tax free threshold is $18k so we don't pay tax till we have earned over that amount. Granted our tax rates are high but there is a lot of compensation for that.


----------



## unbelievable

Woodchuck said:


> Have you ever met a man who was too lazy to attend school, or too prideful to hold a job, spent his time drinking beer, and playing cards, kept his wife pregnant to keep her out of his way, and then didn't even show up when she was in the delivery room.....Who stole from family and friends, and dodged every obligation life placed in his hands? Would useless describe such a person?


Never met a man like that. I've met some people who were male in the biologically technical sense of the word.


----------



## optimalprimus

Woodchuck said:


> Read Theodore Dalrymple?s ?Life at the Bottom? online for free | WINTERY KNIGHT
> 
> Dalrymple paints quite a different picture of life in the U.K.
> 
> Rampant drug use, crime, police indifference, and helpeless citizens, unarmed and living at the mercy of the huge criminal underclass....
> 
> And children being raped and prostituted at the hands of Muslim thugs...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal


Theodore who?! Somehow am sceptical he has any idea what life on a low income is like...


----------



## totallywarped

If these jobs are meant for kids why are they open during school hrs, late at night and sometimes 24 hrs?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

unbelievable said:


> Don't believe I've ever suggested I was better than anyone else. I also don't presume that people are helpless or stupid. I've worked minimum wage jobs. I've actually worked for less than legal minimum wage. The job fairy didn't whack me with her magic wand. No bureaucrat or condescending Liberal came and rescued me from my minimum wage employment. I did what was necessary to develop better skills and I got better employment.
> 
> Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and you know what else will be in demand? Robotic fast food kiosks. If the government mandated that you could spend no less than $30 for a meal, would you eat at McDonald's? People will go where they get the greatest value for their money. Employers are no different. If the price of labor exceeds the price of automation, the employees are going to be out of work.
> If an employer has to pay $15 an hour, he's not going to be putting up with a $7.25 an hour employee who comes in tardy twice a week, forgets to put napkins in the bag, has a criminal record and a surly attitude. A lot of the people you wish to help will be out of work.
> 
> Who else earns minimum wage? How about child care workers?
> Consider the mom who earns $18.00 an hour and pays roughly $8.00 an hour for child care. That extra $10 an hour makes it worth her while to work. How many of those moms will decide that $3.00 an hour isn't worth working? Only about 56% of working age women are in the work force, now. You want to drop that to 49%?
> 
> What sort of people are customers at McDonald's and Hardee's? Rich people? Hardly. Those outfits will necessarily have to raise their prices. Who will actually be paying for us to double the wages of minimum wage employees? It'll mostly come from the pockets of the poor and lower middle class, the very people you wish to help.


I used to work in child care, our workers are trained qualified professionals. In my country child care is subsidised with most families getting 50% back from the government. 

In many Nordic countries it is free, as they recognise that women's contribution to the labour market is valuable, as it boosts the economy enormously and the benefit and income generated for the country is far greater than the cost to the gov/ tax payer, not to mention the long term benefits) 

Child care is a hard job (I certainly would never go back) and I believe it deserves to be more highly paid. 

Fast food workers should receive a decent minimum wage and wages should go up from there. 

We have no issue in the country with paying people correctly and it works well for us and our economy. 

Fast food workers can afford to buy dinner at other resturaunts amongst other things which generates more inco,e and employment. It's crazy how ensuring people can afford to live benefits society.


----------



## Woodchuck

*LittleDeer* said:


> I used to work in child care, our workers are trained qualified professionals. In my country child care is subsidised with most families getting 50% back from the government.
> 
> In many Nordic countries it is free, as they recognise that women's contribution to the labour market is valuable, as it boosts the economy enormously and the benefit and income generated for the country is far greater than the cost to the gov/ tax payer, not to mention the long term benefits)
> 
> Child care is a hard job (I certainly would never go back) and I believe it deserves to be more highly paid.
> 
> Fast food workers should receive a decent minimum wage and wages should go up from there.
> 
> We have no issue in the country with paying people correctly and it works well for us and our economy.
> 
> Fast food workers can afford to buy dinner at other resturaunts amongst other things which generates more inco,e and employment. It's crazy how ensuring people can afford to live benefits society.


In the U.S. there is a long tradition of people who start off at the bottom, and work their way up, and it is in some ways expected....It has always been possible for a person to become wealthy from very humble beginnings....In a culture with a rigid class system, this is not usually the case. The son or daughter of a store clerk could expect to become a store clerk....In much of Europe, socialism has stagnated the economy to the point that upward mobility is all but impossible....

A good friend ran a Borg Warner plant in France. He came back to the U.S. and said it was a horror. The plant had 600 positions, 700 full time workers, and you could not fire anyone, labor strikes, ridiculous work hours, and everyone takes a month off every summer...

Hardly the model for a profit center...Italy will follow Greece, then France, then Spain .....Down the rathole of socialism....Countries where the majority of the populace expects to retire at an early age on a large pension, all paid by the government...

If a country doesn't have oil or other natural resources, it can only survive on the productivity of it's farms and factories...and these entities MUST operate at a profit, or go under...A nanny state will pull down the profitability of industry....England is a perfect example.....The home of some of the finest automobile, small arms, motorcycle, and aircraft makers in the world is now an industrial wasteland....And on the verge of economic collapse...


----------



## Woodchuck

optimalprimus said:


> Theodore who?! Somehow am sceptical he has any idea what life on a low income is like...


Please try to read for CONTENT...The first link is to a FREE posting of his book on living in England.....He works in charity hospitals and prisons, so has daily contact with the poor....


----------



## Woodchuck

unbelievable said:


> Never met a man like that. I've met some people who were male in the biologically technical sense of the word.


It is a charitable description of my BIL. 

I know those who are MUCH worse....Picture the above person with 4 "wives" and at least 10 kids, a pimp, professional gambler, child molester, and cocaine kingpin worth millions, Never had a S.S. card until he was sent to prison in his 60's, because he never worked...who after almost 20 years in a federal prison, is in his 80's living off the S.S. benefits of one of his dead wives..... 

Some people live their entire lives without working a single day...


----------



## optimalprimus

Woodchuck said:


> Please try to read for CONTENT...The first link is to a FREE posting of his book on living in England.....He works in charity hospitals and prisons, so has daily contact with the poor....


277 pages of rambling sermons that was rejected by all British publishers. Even all his reviews are from American press! Sorry mate I've got a demanding job and little baby. Reading some guy's opinion on poor people based on working as a prison psychiatrist isn't going to make it anywhere near my reading list. Now if you want to point to something a bit more focused, critically and about actual poverty not criminality I'd be happy to read.

I have read some of his articles on other issues in the spectator. I don't agree with him on almost anything. He's typical of a lot of the medical profession I'm afraid (i work with lots of docs), who are lionised and develop huge delusions that they are the most qualified people to solve all sorts of problems.

What are your thoughts on increasing inequality of wages (not to mention income - have you read picketty?) and the proportion of US jobs paying under 10 dollars an hour? 

What about the collapse of social mobility in the US? Pickettys work is also hugely informative on this.


----------



## tech-novelist

I think if the $15 minimum wage is so awesome, why not make everyone rich by making it $100/hr.? But $200/hr. would be even better!


----------



## Ikaika

optimalprimus said:


> What about the collapse of social mobility in the US? Pickettys work is also hugely informative on this.



This is a huge looming issue in our country. Aside from the lack of any political will and the current inertia of our current economy, this is likely to worsen over time. 

My simple opinion and take on this, is that we have become a corporate monopolized nation. This is one of the worst things for consumers and workers. Each time two corporate giants merge here, it creates a sucking noise from consumer's wallets and employee pay checks to large preferred investors and the executives in charge. We are USA, Inc.

Parachute into any town or city in this country and you will see little difference in the commercial landscape one from the next. There is no political will nationally or locally to change this picture.


----------



## optimalprimus

Ikaika said:


> This is a huge looming issue in our country. Aside from the lack of any political will and the current inertia of our current economy, this is likely to worsen over time.
> 
> My simple opinion and take on this, is that we have become a corporate monopolized nation. This is one of the worst things for consumers and workers. Each time two corporate giants merge here, it creates a sucking noise from consumer's wallets and employee pay checks to large preferred investors and the executives in charge. We are USA, Inc.
> 
> Parachute into any town or city in this country and you will see little difference in the commercial landscape one from the next. There is no political will nationally or locally to change this picture.


I'm massively simplifying the message in the excellent book i refer to, but technology is the primary driver, as it means that returns in capital are dwarfing returns on labour. If you only have your labour to offer you've been on the losing (comparatively) side of this equation. And once you have capital, you get more and pass it onto your kids etc. You can't pass jobs on as easily.

It is a very difficult problem to solve. I certainly don't have any no brainer answers. I'd like to think not but maybe government redistribution is the only answer to a world made up of starbucks baristas and google.


----------



## Woodchuck

Ikaika said:


> This is a huge looming issue in our country. Aside from the lack of any political will and the current inertia of our current economy, this is likely to worsen over time.
> 
> My simple opinion and take on this, is that we have become a corporate monopolized nation. This is one of the worst things for consumers and workers. Each time two corporate giants merge here, it creates a sucking noise from consumer's wallets and employee pay checks to large preferred investors and the executives in charge. We are USA, Inc.
> 
> Parachute into any town or city in this country and you will see little difference in the commercial landscape one from the next. There is no political will nationally or locally to change this picture.


Walmart began in 1962 and was incorporated in 1969. It was founded by a guy with a Ben Franklin store and sold ladies panties at the lowest price in Rogers Arkansas....

Businesses are founded by a single individual working harder than the rest....I guess some would like to put some kind of penalty on success, I just don't see a fair way to do that. 

Ruger Firearms was founded by a designer with a new product, Microsoft, Apple, the list is long...

There are dozens of individuals right now on the cusp of founding companies that will employ thousands of people and earn billions of dollars...

You will NEVER have a good year if Business has a bad year....


----------



## Ikaika

Woodchuck said:


> Walmart began in 1962 and was incorporated in 1969. It was founded by a guy with a Ben Franklin store and sold ladies panties at the lowest price in Rogers Arkansas....
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses are founded by a single individual working harder than the rest....I guess some would like to put some kind of penalty on success, I just don't see a fair way to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> Ruger Firearms was founded by a designer with a new product, Microsoft, Apple, the list is long...
> 
> 
> 
> There are dozens of individuals right now on the cusp of founding companies that will employ thousands of people and earn billions of dollars...
> 
> 
> 
> You will NEVER have a good year if Business has a bad year....



I don't want to put any restrictions on anyone, I just prefer a country that is not incorporated.


----------



## Runs like Dog

At any level, minimum wage is in fact, the minimum. You raise the level of dumbing down the people and the work they do. At $15 or $40 as a minimum you've don't get better smarter people doing better smarter things, you raise the level of dumbest worst people doing the dumbest worst job they can do. Not that there's anything wrong with that. After all, 70% of the jobs in the US can be done by anyone with an 8th grade education. So now you set the value of being a 9th grade functional illiterate at $15/hr or any other number you like. That's what you will get.


----------



## Holland

Walmart is a prime example of everything that is wrong with corporate America, subsistence wages, Unionism, Govt. subsidies that aide large corporations to avoid paying a living wage etc.



> This documentary takes the viewer on a deeply personal journey into the everyday lives of families struggling to fight Goliath. From a family business owner in the Midwest to a preacher in California, from workers in Florida to a poet in Mexico, dozens of film crews on three continents bring the intensely personal stories of an assault on families and American values.


Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (Video 2005) - IMDb

Makes my blood boil every time I watch it. This is not a company to be held in high esteem.


----------



## Starstarfish

> I don't think a 200% error rate at anything is worth $15 per hour...


I agree! When are we cutting Congressional salary to match their performance?


----------



## Blondilocks

"It is a very difficult problem to solve. I certainly don't have any no brainer answers. I'd like to think not but maybe government redistribution is the only answer to a world made up of starbucks baristas and google." 

Government redistribution is not an answer, period. Our taxes already provide for welfare, health insurance and education. Even for people who are not even citizens of the U.S.

Many Americans are loathe to consider Socialism and downright spit on the thought of Communism. Why? Because we've seen just how the countries who employed those economic ideologies have fared.

I'll thank you to allow me to keep my hard earned money and those wanting more can figure out how to get it just like I did. 

I'm sorry Europe is being overrun with migrants that are taxing the social and economic structures of the countries that they are attempting to invade. Will this mean that you and your brethren will willingly fork over your paychecks to support them?


----------



## optimalprimus

Blondilocks said:


> "It is a very difficult problem to solve. I certainly don't have any no brainer answers. I'd like to think not but maybe government redistribution is the only answer to a world made up of starbucks baristas and google."
> 
> Government redistribution is not an answer, period. Our taxes already provide for welfare, health insurance and education. Even for people who are not even citizens of the U.S.
> 
> Many Americans are loathe to consider Socialism and downright spit on the thought of Communism. Why? Because we've seen just how the countries who employed those economic ideologies have fared.
> 
> I'll thank you to allow me to keep my hard earned money and those wanting more can figure out how to get it just like I did.
> 
> I'm sorry Europe is being overrun with migrants that are taxing the social and economic structures of the countries that they are attempting to invade. Will this mean that you and your brethren will willingly fork over your paychecks to support them?


Sigh. I don't need your thanks, take your grievances up with politicians of the US over the past 100 years who have built up some semblence of a redistributive welfare state. 

I get that you don't like it, but it would be more interesting if you engaged with the issue rather than moving onto irrelevancies like the migrant 'crisis' in Europe.


----------



## unbelievable

To redistribute something, the person doing the distributing would have had to have owned and distributed the property previously. That is not what is being done nor what is contemplated. Government did not give your wages to you. You earned them by your labor, probably in service to a private enterprise. What is being done is wealth confiscation. Essentially, a politician uses the force of government to steal from one person and hands that money off to another, usually with the expectation that the recipient will reward the politician with a vote. The word "redistribution" implies the recipient has some right to the confiscated property they receive. 

Like a tax, inflating the minimum wage gives the recipient money that exceeds the value of their labor. It's basically a tax that consumers end up paying. There never has been income equality, not even in Communist countries. To even wish for such a result is decidedly un-American. The way to create jobs is to let people reap the rewards of starting and expanding businesses.


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> To redistribute something, the person doing the distributing would have had to have owned and distributed the property previously. That is not what is being done nor what is contemplated. Government did not give your wages to you. You earned them by your labor, probably in service to a private enterprise. What is being done is wealth confiscation. Essentially, a politician uses the force of government to steal from one person and hands that money off to another, usually with the expectation that the recipient will reward the politician with a vote. The word "redistribution" implies the recipient has some right to the confiscated property they receive.
> 
> Like a tax, inflating the minimum wage gives the recipient money that exceeds the value of their labor. It's basically a tax that consumers end up paying. There never has been income equality, not even in Communist countries. To even wish for such a result is decidedly un-American. The way to create jobs is to let people reap the rewards of starting and expanding businesses.


No disrespect meant, but explaining to me what redistribution is is a bit like me telling you the proper way to handle a firearm. 

Yes governments use force to redistribute, and to do almost everything. Eg. they use force to stop your better armed neighbour from taking your wife and killing your children as a silverback might do.


----------



## Ikaika

We should not kid ourselves, the U.S. is a socialist country. It's just that safety net socialism is demonized while supposed job creator socialism is accepted practice of doing business. 



Btw, the Cato institute is a conservative think tank.


----------



## Runs like Dog

You're talking at cross purposes. In macro sense rising the minwage, a little, won't and can't take anyone off the dole.


----------



## optimalprimus

Runs like Dog said:


> You're talking at cross purposes. In macro sense rising the minwage, a little, won't and can't take anyone off the dole.


Presumably, as a nihilist, you're talking to no purpose... 😉


----------



## Runs like Dog

It's like in pre Euro Italy. Go out to get a pack of smokes, it's 1500 lira. When you attempt to uplift the 'wage' of the bottom rung synthetically you tend to do little other than inflate your values and depress the currency. In the US there's an additional glitch that with marginally higher minwage and NO OTHER changes people have to make a choice between working and being on the dole, assuming those are gauged to the price index. It may make SOME people better off to pay burger flippers more but it's a horribly inefficient way to do it.


----------



## Blondilocks

I get that you don't like it, but it would be more interesting if you engaged with the issue rather than moving onto irrelevancies like the migrant 'crisis' in Europe."

The migrant 'crisis' is hardly irrelevant in Europe (where you supposedly live) when countries are actively blocking their entrance because of the economic hardships they are under due to the migrants. These are people who want a higher standard of living, too.

Since you act like you are quite knowledgeable in micro and macro economics, why not start your own thread and explain to us ignorant former colonists just how it is supposed to be done?


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Blondilocks said:


> I get that you don't like it, but it would be more interesting if you engaged with the issue rather than moving onto irrelevancies like the migrant 'crisis' in Europe."
> 
> The migrant 'crisis' is hardly irrelevant in Europe (where you supposedly live) when countries are actively blocking their entrance because of the economic hardships they are under due to the migrants. These are people who want a higher standard of living, too.
> 
> Since you act like you are quite knowledgeable in micro and macro economics, why not start your own thread and explain to us ignorant former colonists just how it is supposed to be done?


What has the refugee (not migrant) crisis got to do with redistributing the wealth, and giving less to huge corporations and more to the everyday people? Separate issue. 

My cousing lives in Swedin, he loves it and his Swedish fiancé and all of her family love their system of redistribution (which is even higher than here). 

People saying it doesn't work, that's a load of rubbish, if you look at evidence about who are the happiest and healthiest it's the countries that give back to the people, redistribute wealth fairly so that everyone has healthcare and a high level of free education, access to decent housing and earns a good minimum wage.


----------



## Woodchuck

*LittleDeer* said:


> What has the refugee (not migrant) crisis got to do with redistributing the wealth, and giving less to huge corporations and more to the everyday people? Separate issue.
> 
> My cousing lives in Swedin, he loves it and his Swedish fiancé and all of her family love their system of redistribution (which is even higher than here).
> 
> People saying it doesn't work, that's a load of rubbish, if you look at evidence about who are the happiest and healthiest it's the countries that give back to the people, redistribute wealth fairly so that everyone has healthcare and a high level of free education, access to decent housing and earns a good minimum wage.


SHHHH I think I hear Bernie Sanders...


----------



## Runs like Dog

First thing is to decide what you want the minimum wage to actually accomplish. What does it do, what is it supposed to do?


----------



## unbelievable

optimalprimus said:


> No disrespect meant, but explaining to me what redistribution is is a bit like me telling you the proper way to handle a firearm.
> 
> Yes governments use force to redistribute, and to do almost everything. Eg. they use force to stop your better armed neighbour from taking your wife and killing your children as a silverback might do.


I really doubt my neighbor is better armed and he'd stand a better chance of living attacking me than my wife. That woman would cut you for looking sideways at her.


----------



## Woodchuck

unbelievable said:


> I really doubt my neighbor is better armed and he'd stand a better chance of living attacking me than my wife. That woman would cut you for looking sideways at her.


Don't talk firearms to me...I spent the week end moving gun safes and guns...WHEW...


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> I really doubt my neighbor is better armed and he'd stand a better chance of living attacking me than my wife. That woman would cut you for looking sideways at her.



In other words the southern hospitality that once was has turned to hatred and violence. Oh well

Malama pono


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> In other words the southern hospitality that once was has turned to hatred and violence. Oh well
> 
> Malama pono


We've got loads of hospitality for when such is appropriate and loads of firepower for when that is appropriate. The same bees that give honey also can sting. Whether you get sweetness or pain depends on how you behave.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> we've got loads of hospitality for when such is appropriate and loads of firepower for when that is appropriate. The same bees that give honey also can sting. _depends on_ whether you _are a conservative or a liberal_ .



fify


----------



## Woodchuck

Ikaika said:


> In other words the southern hospitality that once was has turned to hatred and violence. Oh well
> 
> Malama pono


How can anyone speak so hatefully of an entire group of people because of their choice of sports? 

Would it change your mind if I said I shot in the Olympics? 

Accusing someone of lacking in hospitality is unspeakably cruel...

Totally not P.C.

Akamai Kane


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> fify


You can't tell the lost about Jesus if you never meet one. We love Liberals down here.


----------



## Starstarfish

I've meet Jesus, he's a great guy. He's given me rides to work and likes to volunteer at the community clinic and the soup kitchen. He told me to pay my taxes and to be a good neighbor. Not sure about some of his friends though.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> You can't tell the lost about Jesus if you never meet one. We love Liberals down here.



I appreciate the offer, but some sheep have just wandered too far.


----------



## Ikaika

Woodchuck said:


> How can anyone speak so hatefully of an entire group of people because of their choice of sports?
> 
> 
> 
> Would it change your mind if I said I shot in the Olympics?
> 
> 
> 
> Accusing someone of lacking in hospitality is unspeakably cruel...
> 
> 
> 
> Totally not P.C.
> 
> 
> 
> Akamai Kane



My vacuous comments sometimes it just does not work.


----------



## Ikaika

Woodchuck you are right, it was not right for me to lay judgment upon @unbelievable, I apologize to both of you. My Kupuna would never allow me to talk that way about others

Ku`ia ka hele a ka na`au ha`aha`a.


----------



## optimalprimus

Blondilocks said:


> I get that you don't like it, but it would be more interesting if you engaged with the issue rather than moving onto irrelevancies like the migrant 'crisis' in Europe."
> 
> The migrant 'crisis' is hardly irrelevant in Europe (where you supposedly live) when countries are actively blocking their entrance because of the economic hardships they are under due to the migrants. These are people who want a higher standard of living, too.
> 
> Since you act like you are quite knowledgeable in micro and macro economics, why not start your own thread and explain to us ignorant former colonists just how it is supposed to be done?


Its not more than tangentially relevant to a thread about the minimum wage. 

I have already posted several links to reputable data that provide challenges to a few of the assumptions in this thread. Noone has bothered to read and react. 

Its nothing to do with which country we're from and everything to do with analysing the issue in more than a 'pub landlord' style.

I can post more links if you're genuinely interested.


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> I appreciate the offer, but some sheep have just wandered too far.


You can never wander too far. Like modern day Progressives, Paul used to persecute Christians and look what Jesus did with him!


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> Walmart is a prime example of everything that is wrong with corporate America, subsistence wages, Unionism, Govt. subsidies that aide large corporations to avoid paying a living wage etc...


And yet, 2.2 million people are willing to work there, and 260 million people are willing to shop there (world wide).

Otherwise, they couldn't have flourished.


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> And yet, 2.2 million people are willing to work there, and 260 million people are willing to shop there (world wide).
> 
> Otherwise, they couldn't have flourished.


Of course people work there, they are desperate for employment especially in the towns where WM wipe out other existing employers.

Of course people shop there, prices are cheap and this is all some people care about. 

They have flourished on the backs of their underpaid employees and the sweat of those "employed" in 3rd world countries that manufacture for them.

Just because a company has flourished does not make it a good eg of a decent company.


----------



## Justinian

Runs like Dog said:


> First thing is to decide what you want the minimum wage to actually accomplish. What does it do, what is it supposed to do?


I spent most of my working life running my own companies. Over the years I employed hundreds of people. I never paid minimum wage because I always needed people with higher skills than minimum wage would provide.

However, I've lived through many raises in the minimum wage, and the result has always been the same. When the minimum goes up, wages go up correspondingly all the way up the ladder, and it's not long before everyone is in essentially the same position. 

It's just not possible to raise the value of any particular job by law. Its true worth will always be determined by the preparation and skills needed to do it, as well as how many are willing/able to do it.

While I've seen many minimum wage increases, the jump currently being proposed is by far the largest. I don't think anyone can be certain what the ripple effects of such a jolt will be.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Big Box stores don't serve the same function as artisinal bakeries. Nor could artisinal bakeries ever service a clientele remotely similar to that of the Big Box stores. I'm quite happy with many of the things I get in either place. In fact for homeowner hardware Walmart is often a better deal than places like Home Depot item for item. I don't want or need DOD MILSPEC aircraft screws at $20 a unit but if I did I wouldn't get them at Walmart. It really speaks to what you're trying to do. My mother, the former Soviet communist and now New England Liberal Progressive Whole Food shopping Social Justice Warrior won't shop in Walmart. How nice for her that never having felt the need to support her own children has afforded her that luxury. I bet she doesn't pay her gardener $50,000 a year.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> ... Just because a company has flourished does not make it a good eg of a decent company.


For an investor they would be a good choice.

For shoppers, they seem to be popular (I personally don't like to shop there).

And, from articles I've read, most of their employees seem to be happy.

Where's the indecency?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Yes - salary compression is a problem. If you give the scut workers a 30% increase then what do their supervisors get. On a broader scale we used to see this as a form of age discrimination in high tech firms. People with knowledge and experience are kept in place with low or zero wage increases at the same time HR recruiters feel they have to pay college grads more and more until new employees who literally know nothing are making far more than their bosses. The bosses don't quit but they adopt a do as little as possible work ethic.


----------



## Starstarfish

Sort of like people who rally how adoption is an alternative to abortion and how people out there want all these babies, but few actually foster or adopt themselves. Someone wants those babies, just not them.

Hypocrisy is a human condition, it's hardly Liberal specific.


----------



## Ikaika

Runs like Dog said:


> Big Box stores don't serve the same function as artisinal bakeries. Nor could artisinal bakeries ever service a clientele remotely similar to that of the Big Box stores. I'm quite happy with many of the things I get in either place. In fact for homeowner hardware Walmart is often a better deal than places like Home Depot item for item. I don't want or need DOD MILSPEC aircraft screws at $20 a unit but if I did I wouldn't get them at Walmart. It really speaks to what you're trying to do. My mother, the former Soviet communist and now New England Liberal Progressive Whole Food shopping Social Justice Warrior won't shop in Walmart. How nice for her that never having felt the need to support her own children has afforded her that luxury. I bet she doesn't pay her gardener $50,000 a year.



However many artisan shops just don't exist because even these have been highjack'd by big box stores with cheaper prices and cheaper quality. 

I don't know about other locales, but here big box stores operate their brick and mortar facilities lease and rent free. No small business person is given the same subsidy.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Well there's always a value in value. The problem is finding the right one. Walmart accounts for most of the annual output of Toro lawnmowers. Don't sell lawnmowers if you're not Walmart. And even for Toro it's not a good deal because your only customer will dictate terms you can't afford


----------



## Justinian

Runs like Dog said:


> Well there's always a value in value. The problem is finding the right one. Walmart accounts for most of the annual output of Toro lawnmowers. Don't sell lawnmowers if you're not Walmart. And even for Toro it's not a good deal because your only customer will dictate terms you can't afford.


For any business, it's risky to allow more than 10%-15% of your sales to come from 1 source.


----------



## Ikaika

Runs like Dog said:


> Well there's always a value in value. The problem is finding the right one. Walmart accounts for most of the annual output of Toro lawnmowers. Don't sell lawnmowers if you're not Walmart. And even for Toro it's not a good deal because your only customer will dictate terms you can't afford



The list of what is profitable to start as a small retailer gets smaller every day with these large box brick and mortar and Amazon growing like its name sake. 

Service industry is all that is left for the many to complete for a smaller customer base. Would you open an appliance repair shop? I wouldn't. Our culture suggest you replace the broken item with the latest and greatest when the old is worn out. Just watch a Sears commercial, they will tell you as much. Never mind that once the old one is taken away, we don't think about where it ends up. I of course live on an island. 

Food, we don't do quality here, only salt, fatty and large quantities. 

Everything done cheap and centralized; most buy into it without a thought.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> For any business, it's risky to allow more than 10%-15% of your sales to come from 1 source.



Which is why most car companies realized the real profits margins came from being a bank, e.g., GMAC financing, rather than just selling cars. Now most are banks, that just so happen to make and sell cars.

Every retailer has their brand of cc now. Use their cc and get a discount even if you will pay that discount back with interest someday.


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> For an investor they would be a good choice.
> 
> For shoppers, they seem to be popular (I personally don't like to shop there).
> 
> And, from articles I've read, most of their employees seem to be happy.
> 
> Where's the indecency?


Watch the doco. WM were earlier given as an eg of the great American way. I am all for people being able to start and create their own businesses, that is my family background and we have enjoyed extreme wealth from it. A huge amount of hard work involved but at no stage has any employee or supplier ever been treated poorly. However WM have created their wealth on the backs of the poor, their employees are paid subsistence wages and then encouraged to make the shortfall via Govt handouts.
So much indecency with the way companies like this are run, again I suggest you watch the doco to see how the great American dream was built using very dubious means.


----------



## Ikaika

Holland said:


> Watch the doco. WM were earlier given as an eg of the great American way. I am all for people being able to start and create their own businesses, that is my family background and we have enjoyed extreme wealth from it. A huge amount of hard work involved but at no stage has any employee or supplier ever been treated poorly. However WM have created their wealth on the backs of the poor, their employees are paid subsistence wages and then encouraged to make the shortfall via Govt handouts.
> 
> So much indecency with the way companies like this are run, again I suggest you watch the doco to see how the great American dream was built using very dubious means.



I knew of two people that applied to Walmart. When you place an application, which is electronic (most apply at their municipal library - free internet access), they automatically send you to SNAP (food stamps) right after hitting the "submit" button.


----------



## unbelievable

Justinian said:


> For any business, it's risky to allow more than 10%-15% of your sales to come from 1 source.


What percentage of climate research funding comes from the government? What percentage of a hospital's revenue comes from government? What percentage of the nation's education industry funding comes from government? If it's dangerous for WalMart why is it not far more dangerous for the scientific community, the education sector, and the health sector?


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> What percentage of climate research funding comes from the government? What percentage of a hospital's revenue comes from government? What percentage of the nation's education industry funding comes from government? If it's dangerous for WalMart why is it not far more dangerous for the scientific community, the education sector, and the health sector?



Who would you prefer funding climate research, fossil fuel industry? 

Should health care be about health or profit margins? Gee, I wonder what happens when your care exceeds profits? 

Hmm, privatized education, so only folks like me can afford to send our children to school? Awesome.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> So much indecency with the way companies like this are run, again I suggest you watch the doco to see how the great American dream was built using very dubious means.


I saw that documentary years ago. I came away thinking of it mostly as a anti-capitalist propaganda piece.


----------



## Justinian

Justinian said:


> For any business, it's risky to allow more than 10%-15% of your sales to come from 1 source.





unbelievable said:


> What percentage of climate research funding comes from the government? What percentage of a hospital's revenue comes from government? What percentage of the nation's education industry funding comes from government? If it's dangerous for WalMart why is it not far more dangerous for the scientific community, the education sector, and the health sector?


It is risky for any organization to gain the bulk of their profits (or funding) from one source. If that source dries up for any reason, the organization will likely have to cease operating before a replacement can be found.


----------



## Always Learning

Justinian said:


> I spent most of my working life running my own companies. Over the years I employed hundreds of people. I never paid minimum wage because I always needed people with higher skills than minimum wage would provide.
> 
> However, I've lived through many raises in the minimum wage, and the result has always been the same. *When the minimum goes up, wages go up correspondingly all the way up the ladder*, and it's not long before everyone is in essentially the same position.
> 
> It's just not possible to raise the value of any particular job by law. Its true worth will always be determined by the preparation and skills needed to do it, as well as how many are willing/able to do it.
> 
> While I've seen many minimum wage increases, the jump currently being proposed is by far the largest. I don't think anyone can be certain what the ripple effects of such a jolt will be.


I'd have to disagree with this, I am in a state that increased the MW $1.00 earlier this year I have not received a raise. I am in middle management.

My daughter (student) took a new job about four months prior to the new MW. She started at $1.00 higher than the MW because she had experience and schooling. They also told her that after six months if her performance was good she would get an increase of $.50 to $1.00. Four months later when the new state mandated MW went up $1.00 she stayed stagnant and now the lesser experienced less educated were making the same as her (an excellent education in socialism). At the six month mark of her employment she is getting excellent reviews but no raise because of they can't afford it yet. Guess where her raise went!

My other two kids work part time at an ice cream shop in town. Same day the new MW went into effect the prices at the shop went up.


----------



## Justinian

Always Learning said:


> I'd have to disagree with this, I am in a state that increased the MW $1.00 earlier this year I have not received a raise. I am in middle management.
> 
> My daughter (student) took a new job about four months prior to the new MW. She started at $1.00 higher than the MW because she had experience and schooling. They also told her that after six months if her performance was good she would get an increase of $.50 to $1.00. Four months later when the new state mandated MW went up $1.00 she stayed stagnant and now the lesser experienced less educated were making the same as her (an excellent education in socialism). At the six month mark of her employment she is getting excellent reviews but no raise because of they can't afford it yet. Guess where her raise went!
> 
> My other two kids work part time at an ice cream shop in town. Same day the new MW went into effect the prices at the shop went up.


As they say, history is the best teacher. I've seen it work exactly the way I stated for decades. The effect isn't always immediate, but eventually it works up the ladder.

Imagine a moderately skilled person currently working for $15.00 an hour suddenly finding themselves at minimum wage. They're going to be unhappy and expect a considerable raise. And then their immediate supervisor will want more also, and so on, and so on. 

Yes, there will also be price increases, and they will spread until many things cost more. (I think it's called inflation  )

As I said earlier, when you try to raise pay by fiat, most employees will eventually wind up _essentially_ in the same place.


----------



## Always Learning

Justinian said:


> As they say, history is the best teacher. I've seen it work exactly the way I stated for decades. The effect isn't always immediate, but eventually it works up the ladder.
> 
> Imagine a moderately skilled person currently working for $15.00 an hour suddenly finding themselves at minimum wage. They're going to be unhappy and expect a considerable raise. And then their immediate supervisor will want more also, and so on, and so on.
> 
> Yes, there will also be price increases, and they will spread until many things cost more. (I think it's called inflation  )
> 
> As I said earlier, when you try to raise pay by fiat, most employees will eventually wind up _essentially_ in the same place.


Yes, I tend to agree with you, but in the stagnant job market we have it is hard to demand an increase unless you have the option to leave for that higher wage. That isn't a reality right now.


----------



## Justinian

Always Learning said:


> ... in the stagnant job market we have it is hard to demand an increase unless you have the option to leave for that higher wage. That isn't a reality right now.


Exactly! It's all about supply and demand.

The correct way to increases wages is not by passing a law, it's by creating more jobs so that employers are forced to compete with other employers to get the quality of employee they want.

More jobs are created by encouraging capital investment, not punishing or demonizing those who invest.

No job has ever been created without some sort of investment.


----------



## Runs like Dog

As an immigrant I can't afford to worry about how you feel about your ancestors real or imagined. We sacrificed a great deal to come here and if being born here makes you sad and angry I have no pity for you and your first world problems.


----------



## unbelievable

Holland said:


> Of course people work there, they are desperate for employment especially in the towns where WM wipe out other existing employers.
> 
> Of course people shop there, prices are cheap and this is all some people care about.
> 
> They have flourished on the backs of their underpaid employees and the sweat of those "employed" in 3rd world countries that manufacture for them.
> 
> Just because a company has flourished does not make it a good eg of a decent company.


Isn't efficiency the goal of every business? It's supposed to be one of the goals of government, too. People aren't stupid and if they weren't getting good value for their money they wouldn't be in WalMart. You are free to also open a store and offer better goods for a better price or offer a few goods for an outrageous price. If people can buy 100.00 worth of goods for 80.00, their standard of living is being improved. I don't believe that's a bad thing. Rather than knock successful business leaders we should be trying to create more of them.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

Holland said:


> Of course people work there, they are desperate for employment especially in the towns where WM wipe out other existing employers.
> 
> Of course people shop there, prices are cheap and this is all some people care about.
> 
> They have flourished on the backs of their underpaid employees and the sweat of those "employed" in 3rd world countries that manufacture for them.
> 
> Just because a company has flourished does not make it a good eg of a decent company.


Do I dare ask what you think of people who shop online or through mail order?


----------



## optimalprimus

Justinian said:


> As they say, history is the best teacher. I've seen it work exactly the way I stated for decades. The effect isn't always immediate, but eventually it works up the ladder.
> 
> Imagine a moderately skilled person currently working for $15.00 an hour suddenly finding themselves at minimum wage. They're going to be unhappy and expect a considerable raise. And then their immediate supervisor will want more also, and so on, and so on.
> 
> Yes, there will also be price increases, and they will spread until many things cost more. (I think it's called inflation  )
> 
> As I said earlier, when you try to raise pay by fiat, most employees will eventually wind up _essentially_ in the same place.


So are you saying that if people are unhappy with income inequality, government redistribution is a more effective answer than setting minimum prices(wages)? I'm not arguing the case of either just trying to have an interesting discussion relevant to the challenges of legislators.

Also, to the debate about overreliance on single source funding I'd make two points. 

1) lots of things that are societally beneficial will be underprovided by a pure market economy. If this is news to you take a look at a standard undergraduate public economics class.

2) in lots of cases where government steps in to boost provision, choice remains with the individual, who remains the customer. Schools and hospitals are good examples. Of course, the funding ultimately comes from taxation, but if that dries out then i think an awful lot of other businesses would he struggling! Governments can more easily run deficits and finance debt on behalf of their people than the other 'customers' can do themselves.

Of course, before anyone tries to knock down this point rather than engage with it, govts can go bust. But they're generally a safer bet than an individual.


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> I saw that documentary years ago. I came away thinking of it mostly as a anti-capitalist propaganda piece.


I am a believer in Capitalism but not to the detriment of others. I came away from this doco reeling at the atrocious treatment of this companies employees and suppliers. It was not anti capitalist propaganda at all, it showed the real cost of this type of business model to the surrounding businesses, the community, employees and the huge burden that the Govt. takes on by subsidising the wages that this business should be shouldering. It is not a good business model on so many levels. Bravo to those communities that rallied against WM opening in their area, they saw the negative impact of others communities that were decimated by WM opening in their area.


----------



## Holland

unbelievable said:


> Isn't efficiency the goal of every business? It's supposed to be one of the goals of government, too. People aren't stupid and if they weren't getting good value for their money they wouldn't be in WalMart. You are free to also open a store and offer better goods for a better price or offer a few goods for an outrageous price. If people can buy 100.00 worth of goods for 80.00, their standard of living is being improved. I don't believe that's a bad thing. Rather than knock successful business leaders we should be trying to create more of them.


Yes efficiency is a goal of most businesses however the business model of WM is not about efficiency it is based on tax and Govt loopholes that are actually costing the hosting communities and ALL of the rest of American tax payers big dollars. 

Companies can make big profits without resorting to the types of tactics this one does.


----------



## Holland

ExiledBayStater said:


> Do I dare ask what you think of people who shop online or through mail order?


Not sure of the relevance of this question to my point about the immoral business tactics of WM.


----------



## unbelievable

Whether government "redistributes" wealth through taxation and social spending or they do it through manipulation of wages, the effect is the same. Wealth is being taken from high producers and handed to low producers with no corresponding increase in value or productivity. Both methods provide a disincentive for an employee to increase the quantity or quality of his labor. Both methods result in higher unemployment and lower productivity. 

The surest way for a government to go bust is for it to tinker too much with a free market economy. People know how to make money and given the freedom to do so they will.


----------



## unbelievable

Holland said:


> Yes efficiency is a goal of most businesses however the business model of WM is not about efficiency it is based on tax and Govt loopholes that are actually costing the hosting communities and ALL of the rest of American tax payers big dollars.
> 
> Companies can make big profits without resorting to the types of tactics this one does.


Competition isn't some heinous tactic. It's business and it results in improved quality and lower prices...in short, higher customer satisfaction. That's something you don't typically find at the DMV or in your public school's lunch room. 

If you don't like the tax code, that's not a complaint for WM but a complaint for your elected representative. Do you have a problem with the "loophole" that allows nearly half of wage-earners to not pay federal income taxes?


----------



## Holland

I never said competition is a bad thing. I do however have a problem with the business model of WM and the tactics it uses to decimate other local business, destabilises employment, pays subsistence wages and then pushes employees to seek the shortfall from the Govt.
If you think this is a good business model then that is fine but I don't and never will.

It is possible turn a profit without immoral tactics. 

If you are saying that competition to the detriment of good Corporate Citizenship is acceptable to you then again that is fine but it is not something I would ever agree with.


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> Whether government "redistributes" wealth through taxation and social spending or they do it through manipulation of wages, the effect is the same. Wealth is being taken from high producers and handed to low producers with no corresponding increase in value or productivity. Both methods provide a disincentive for an employee to increase the quantity or quality of his labor. Both methods result in higher unemployment and lower productivity.
> 
> The surest way for a government to go bust is for it to tinker too much with a free market economy. People know how to make money and given the freedom to do so they will.


Funnily, the min wage in US was highest in 1968. Was unemployment high then? It was at pretty much the lowest in modern history.

The highest unemployment rates in the US have occurred when markets have failed.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

Holland said:


> Not sure of the relevance of this question to my point about the immoral business tactics of WM.


One of their immoral tactics is to pay low wages in the store. If I shop on the Web, I avoid stores entirely.

I expect we will see more Web shopping in the USA of federal minimum wage increases to $15 an hour.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## F-102

They raised the minimum wage here in Chicago... HOORAY!!!!

1. The fast food establishments replaced a good portion of the employees with digital order takers, like at an ATM...D'OH!

2. The workers that stayed at the new "living wage" are now no longer eligible for government benefits like housing, free child care and food stamps, so life just got HARDER for them...D'OH!

3. The rest of the establishments simply shut down and moved OUT of Chicago, citing overly-high operating costs, throwing even MORE people out of work...D'OH!

Aren't you glad that they raised the minimum wage?


----------



## F-102

Then, there was my friend who once worked at a warehouse, and was in charge of several employees, mostly of Mexican descent. One of the employees was very hardworking, came to work early, practically ran the place without any supervision, and deserved a raise. So, when my friend went to his boss to get permission for the raise, the boss didn't even look at him, got up, poured himself another cup of coffee, sat his fat ass back in his chair, and said: "Do you know how many w+tbacks will do his job for HALF what he's getting now?"


----------



## Woodchuck

F-102 said:


> Then, there was my friend who once worked at a warehouse, and was in charge of several employees, mostly of Mexican descent. One of the employees was very hardworking, came to work early, practically ran the place without any supervision, and deserved a raise. So, when my friend went to his boss to get permission for the raise, the boss didn't even look at him, got up, poured himself another cup of coffee, sat his fat ass back in his chair, and said: "Do you know how many w+tbacks will do his job for HALF what he's getting now?"



Was it true? Did that guy eventually get a raise or better job? 

Being successful requires that you put yourself in situations where your hard work will be rewarded...Sometimes that means going somewhere else...

Nothing can prevent some bosses from being colossal A$$hats....

I am sure that if the hard worker (I don't mean that in a racist way) was doing that well, and management wasn't willing to give him a raise, your friend would give him a good reference for another job...

Being the best at what you do will always improve your lot...

Giving me a BIG CHICKEN and small curly fries improves nothing....


----------



## Woodchuck

Holland said:


> I never said competition is a bad thing. I do however have a problem with the business model of WM and the tactics it uses to decimate other local business, destabilises employment, pays subsistence wages and then pushes employees to seek the shortfall from the Govt.
> If you think this is a good business model then that is fine but I don't and never will.
> 
> It is possible turn a profit without immoral tactics.
> 
> If you are saying that competition to the detriment of good Corporate Citizenship is acceptable to you then again that is fine but it is not something I would ever agree with.


How long has it been since you shopped at a Walmart store...They are much better now...


----------



## karole

My husband and I own our own business and work in the manufacturing sector. One of our biggest clients (its a large corporation that most of you would recognize and they have plants all over the United States) is building their first plant in Mexico. They have people here from Mexico now training them to run the plant there. The plant here pays exceptionally well, higher hourly wage, retirement, stock options, etc. The workers that are currently training for the positions at the Mexico plant are starting off at $5.00 per hour - doing the exact same positions. How long do you think it will be until the plant here moves all their business to Mexico? This plant is our largest customer - almost half of our business comes from them. If we lose them, we will have to let go of half our employees to stay in business.


----------



## optimalprimus

karole said:


> My husband and I own our own business and work in the manufacturing sector. One of our biggest clients (its a large corporation that most of you would recognize and they have plants all over the United States) is building their first plant in Mexico. They have people here from Mexico now training them to run the plant there. The plant here pays exceptionally well, higher hourly wage, retirement, stock options, etc. The workers that are currently training for the positions at the Mexico plant are starting off at $5.00 per hour - doing the exact same positions. How long do you think it will be until the plant here moves all their business to Mexico? This plant is our largest customer - almost half of our business comes from them. If we lose them, we will have to let go of half our employees to stay in business.


For clarity, is your point that higher wages (minimum wage or reservation wage otherwise) coupled with free trade causes countries to lose industries where wage costs are the most important factor in profitability?

No argument from me. But generally we're not going to accept a huge chunk of our population having a lower standard of living than people in developing countries, so govts react in numerous ways.

A) investing in education and technology to generate new jobs and people to fill them, where the wage differentials aren't quite as important.
B) redistribution to support families on a low income to afford food, clothing and shelter.
C) minimum wages to increase the incomes of those at the bottom, particularly where trade isn't such a big factor.

The free market by nature does very little to reduce inequality, so govts intervene, everywhere. If people didn't care about inequality, they would vote someone else in.


----------



## Runs like Dog

That was one of the good things about defense contracting, It almost always requires the work to be done in the US albeit in recent years they've relaxed the rules on citizenship vs work visa so you're starting to see many foreigners on H1Bs doing the work. Pity.


----------



## Always Learning

optimalprimus said:


> For clarity, is your point that higher wages (minimum wage or reservation wage otherwise) coupled with free trade causes countries to lose industries where wage costs are the most important factor in profitability?
> 
> No argument from me. But generally we're not going to accept a huge chunk of our population having a lower standard of living than people in developing countries, so govts react in numerous ways.
> 
> A) investing in education and technology to generate new jobs and people to fill them, where the wage differentials aren't quite as important.
> B) redistribution to support families on a low income to afford food, clothing and shelter.
> C) minimum wages to increase the incomes of those at the bottom, particularly where trade isn't such a big factor.
> 
> The free market by nature does very little to reduce inequality, so govts intervene, everywhere. If people didn't care about inequality, they would vote someone else in.


With the upcoming election I see the term "Income Inequality" thrown around a lot. Can someone please explain what it means. The only possible meaning I can see is if two people are doing the same job at the same company and at the same performance level, but one is getting paid more, that would be "Income Inequality". 

To me it appears that the way the term is being thrown around it is just a way to further demonize the more successful people in the US. What would "Income Equality" look like, Communism?


----------



## Justinian

Justinian said:


> As they say, history is the best teacher. I've seen it work exactly the way I stated for decades. The effect isn't always immediate, but eventually it works up the ladder.
> 
> Imagine a moderately skilled person currently working for $15.00 an hour suddenly finding themselves at minimum wage. They're going to be unhappy and expect a considerable raise. And then their immediate supervisor will want more also, and so on, and so on.
> 
> Yes, there will also be price increases, and they will spread until many things cost more. (I think it's called inflation  )
> 
> As I said earlier, when you try to raise pay by fiat, most employees will eventually wind up _essentially_ in the same place.





optimalprimus said:


> So are you saying that if people are unhappy with income inequality, government redistribution is a more effective answer than setting minimum prices(wages)? I'm not arguing the case of either just trying to have an interesting discussion relevant to the challenges of legislators.


I don't think I said anything like that. However, I will say that neither is (or has been) very effective. That is often the case when our government tries to "fix" things.




optimalprimus said:


> Also, to the debate about overreliance on single source funding I'd make two points.
> 
> 1) lots of things that are societally beneficial will be underprovided by a pure market economy. If this is news to you take a look at a standard undergraduate public economics class.
> 
> 2) in lots of cases where government steps in to boost provision, choice remains with the individual, who remains the customer. Schools and hospitals are good examples. Of course, the funding ultimately comes from taxation, but if that dries out then i think an awful lot of other businesses would he struggling! Governments can more easily run deficits and finance debt on behalf of their people than the other 'customers' can do themselves.
> 
> Of course, before anyone tries to knock down this point rather than engage with it, govts can go bust. But they're generally a safer bet than an individual.


All I said was that any business relying on a single source of revenue is at risk, and that is true. 

I see it as similar to investing in the stock market. Investing only in one sector can lead to big gains or big losses. Investing in multiple sectors may not have the same potential for gains, but it lessens the risk of losses.


----------



## Justinian

Always Learning said:


> With the upcoming election I see the term "Income Inequality" thrown around a lot. Can someone please explain what it means. The only possible meaning I can see is if two people are doing the same job at the same company and at the same performance level, but one is getting paid more, that would be "Income Inequality".
> 
> *To me it appears that the way the term is being thrown around it is just a way to further demonize the more successful people in the US.* What would "Income Equality" look like, Communism?


I think your conclusion is accurate. This happens with every election, the politicians identify "issues" and then promise to go after the "bad" guys if the "good" guys will vote for them. The issues, good guys, and bad guys may change, but the game is always the same.

Of course, there are rarely any details on how they intend to deliver on their promises, but sadly, that doesn't seem to matter to a poorly informed electorate. 

The result is that we often wind up replacing what works with what sounds good.


----------



## optimalprimus

Runs like Dog said:


> That was one of the good things about defense contracting, It almost always requires the work to be done in the US albeit in recent years they've relaxed the rules on citizenship vs work visa so you're starting to see many foreigners on H1Bs doing the work. Pity.


Yeah i should have added a D) impose trade barriers.


----------



## optimalprimus

Justinian said:


> I don't think I said anything like that. However, I will say that neither is (or has been) very effective. That is often the case when our government tries to "fix" things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was that any business relying on a single source of revenue is at risk, and that is true.
> 
> I see it as similar to investing in the stock market. Investing only in one sector can lead to big gains or big losses. Investing in multiple sectors may not have the same potential for gains, but it lessens the risk of losses.


I wouldn't argue that either have been that effective, but other alternatives perhaps even less so. 

I guess my point was in response to the argument that industries/providers dependent on govt funding were in the same sort of weak position as a provider with a single private customer.

the 'govt' is often not really a single source of revenue in the same way. Sometimes it is, like when it provides direct grants to charities, defence contractors and the like.


----------



## Justinian

Justinian said:


> I saw that documentary years ago. I came away thinking of it mostly as a anti-capitalist propaganda piece.





Holland said:


> I am a believer in Capitalism but not to the detriment of others.* I came away from this doco reeling at the atrocious treatment of this companies employees and suppliers. It was not anti capitalist propaganda at all *, it showed the real cost of this type of business model to the surrounding businesses, the community, employees and the huge burden that the Govt. takes on by subsidizing the wages that this business should be shouldering. It is not a good business model on so many levels ...


You and I obviously had totally different reactions to the film. That's not uncommon.

I think it's important to take this type of documentary with a grain of salt. When a documentary is produced to prove some political point it is likely to include information that has been "massaged" to enhance that point, as well as have information excluded that may weaken the point.

Michael Moore was notorious for this in his documentaries. Bowling for Columbine was full of distorted facts, and contained footage of violent scenes that had nothing to do with Columbine. When confronted with this after the film's release Mr. Moore said that the film wasn't really a documentary, it was meant as "satire" to prove his point. Of course that didn't stop him from stepping up on stage and accepting an Oscar for best documentary of 2002.

Regarding "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", it was produced by Brian M. Beirau, and directed by Robert Greenwald, both long-time political activists who have done similar projects on many issues that concern them. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but their work must naturally be scrutinized carefully for accuracy. It might even be safer to consider their work as satire more than documentary.

I don't see where WalMart has done anything illegal or immoral. They developed a business model that has made them wildly successful, a model not so different from other successful companies. Their size makes them an easy target, which results in a lot of negative publicity. Some of it may be deserved, but a lot of it is grossly unfair.

In yesterday's newspaper was an article about WalMart recently donating 50 million dollars to "Teach for America" an organization that recruits and support new teachers. It is estimated that this grant alone will result in 4000 new teachers nationwide.

In 2014 WalMart donated 1.4 billion dollars to various charities worldwide, and in 2015 it is expected they will top that. They've been high on the list of corporate donors for decades. Maybe this information isn't more widely reported because it might make it harder to hate them.

I don't mean to sound like a cheerleader for WalMart, my feelings about them are actually very neutral. As I said earlier, I don't even shop there. I just think criticism of any person or organization should be fair and based on facts. In today's "information age" it's so easy say anything about anyone and have a large portion of the population accept it as fact.


----------



## Justinian

optimalprimus said:


> ... I guess my point was in response to the argument that industries/providers dependent on govt funding were in the same sort of weak position as a provider with a single private customer.


If I am understanding you correctly, they are in exactly the same weak position.

Many a company has gone under after suddenly losing a government contract that was their sole or primary source of revenue.


----------



## optimalprimus

Justinian said:


> If I am understanding you correctly, they are in exactly the same weak position.
> 
> Many a company has gone under after suddenly losing a government contract that was their sole or primary source of revenue.


No I'm obviously not being clear. I separately discussed the single contract situations. In the UK a charity has been in the news because they were mismanaged and govt pulled the plug, causing them to go bust. 

But most "govt funding" doesn't fall into the same category as having a single customer. Real people choose to use the hospitals and schools, so they are the 'customers', and govt is the payer. And a damn reliable one too.

Even in disastrous situations like greece, schools and hospitals are still getting most of the income they received before.

Anyhow this is somewhat of a tangent.


----------



## arbitrator

EleGirl said:


> Well, one Hardies got it wrong, no one who works as fast food places deserves $15 an hour.
> 
> LOL


*Try putting in a few hours on the clock in those conditions, more especially working at the busier lunch and dinner shifts, and come back and tell us how you feel then!

I wouldn't necessarily be knocking those folks until you've actually tried it! You might be mildly surprised!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ExiledBayStater

arbitrator said:


> *Try putting in a few hours on the clock in those conditions, more especially working at the busier lunch and dinner shifts, and come back and tell us how you feel then!
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily be knocking those folks until you've actually tried it! You might be mildly surprised!*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've worked in Friendly's, a casual restaurant chain on the East Coast. I wasn't worth $15 an hour.


----------



## Starstarfish

God, I miss Friendlies.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Starstarfish said:


> God, I miss Friendlies.


there may be a few people still waiting for service....


----------



## karole

https://www.aei.org/publication/min...staurants-1300-largest-since-great-recession/


----------



## optimalprimus

karole said:


> https://www.aei.org/publication/min...staurants-1300-largest-since-great-recession/


Link doesn't work for me. How about this one. Jobs in hospitality and leisure are up in the seattle area arent they. According to the actual official stats.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.wa_seattle_msa.htm

Looked at it now. It could be interesting but two things I'd want to know ( knowing how these think tanks and interest groups work).

1) why focus exclusively on the restaurant industry when the minimum wage affects more than just that industry. Could it be that they're cherry picking data? Hence the value of looking at the wider employment position.

2) one data point is hardly a trend. They didn't mention whether this was a consistent decline over the period or a sudden drop in june. When the drop is as marginal as they report more data points are required.

Be interesting to see some more impartial analysis.


----------



## karole

I don't know why the link didn't work for you, but it worked when I tried it. The articles states that since the minimum wage rate increase, Seattle has lost 1,300 food service jobs.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> However WM have created their wealth on the backs of the poor, their employees are paid subsistence wages and then encouraged to make the shortfall via Govt handouts.
> 
> So much indecency with the way companies like this are run, again I suggest you watch the doco to see how the great American dream was built using very dubious means.


An excerpt from USA Today regarding yesterday's fast food worker strike:

A McDonald's on Stanwix Street in Pittsburgh was shuttered Tuesday morning, a sign on the door reading: "CLOSED due to STRIKE." At another McDonald's outside of Rochester, N.Y., about 30 demonstrators shouted "Hold the burgers, hold the fries, we want our wages supersized!"

Several McDonald's employees were interviewed on the news yesterday, and coincidentally, they all had large families. All said that they didn't earn enough to feed their kids without government assistance.

Does this put McDonald's in the group of immoral companies "creating their wealth on the backs of the poor, their employees paid subsistence wages and then encouraged to make the shortfall via Govt handouts"?

Another question: Is it possible to wake up one morning and suddenly realize that you have five or six kids, and that you don't have the earning power to support them?


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> An excerpt from USA Today regarding yesterday's fast food worker strike:
> 
> A McDonald's on Stanwix Street in Pittsburgh was shuttered Tuesday morning, a sign on the door reading: "CLOSED due to STRIKE." At another McDonald's outside of Rochester, N.Y., about 30 demonstrators shouted "Hold the burgers, hold the fries, we want our wages supersized!"
> 
> Several McDonald's employees were interviewed on the news yesterday, and coincidentally, they all had large families. All said that they didn't earn enough to feed their kids without government assistance.
> 
> Does this put McDonald's in the group of immoral companies "creating their wealth on the backs of the poor, their employees paid subsistence wages and then encouraged to make the shortfall via Govt handouts"?
> 
> Another question: Is it possible to wake up one morning and suddenly realize that you have five or six kids, and that you don't have the earning power to support them?


Why ask me a question that has zero to do with the points I have made. I'm all for discussion but will not answer accusatory type questions that are irrelevant to my previous posts on the topic.

If you wish to ask a side question such as the one above great but put it in a separate post and direct it to the whole community.

My points have been about a very strongly held view that WM have very poor form when it comes to being a decent, moral corporate citizen.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> ... My points have been about a very strongly held view that WM have very poor form when it comes to being a decent, moral corporate citizen.


And my counterpoints have been about the fact that I disagree, and why.

I think that's why it's called a "forum".


----------



## Runs like Dog

Minimum wage isn't the issue thought it makes good copy for the social justice warriors to scream and whine. The issue is that the middle class hasn't seen a REAL wage increase since the 1970's. Both parties see the middle class as an ATM to keep kicking until the money runs out. Sure - give the middle schoolers $15/hr, give them $20. Who cares? When you're two 35 year olds trying to keep your family together working for a company that hasn't increased waged in 30 years while benefits costs climb up and up and up it's not going to matter. After all, half the people who work at McD probably earn more than the disposable income of most of their customers.


----------



## SMG15

These people are too stupid to realize that if they made $15 an hour they would only get 15 hours a week max

LOL $225 a week before taxes


----------



## Blondilocks

Several years ago, I was on a tour of the South along with several Australians (one was an accountant for brothels - he was a hoot). What fascinated me was towards the end of the tour the Australians all headed for Walmart. Why? To buy linens and bath rugs because they were so expensive at home. Even with buying cheap luggage to ship them and paying the shipping fees these people thought they had died and gone to heaven.

Woodchuck, I hereby give you permission to get over the big chicken sandwich and curly fries. I commiserate, of course.


----------



## Blondilocks

BTW, most waiters and waitresses desire to work the dinner crowd - bigger tips. I feel sorry for the breakfast servers - many times they do more work than the dinner shift and get paltry tips.


----------



## SMG15

Blondilocks said:


> BTW, most waiters and waitresses desire to work the dinner crowd - bigger tips. I feel sorry for the breakfast servers - many times they do more work than the dinner shift and get paltry tips.


Yup because is a lot cheaper


----------



## Woodchuck

Blondilocks said:


> BTW, most waiters and waitresses desire to work the dinner crowd - bigger tips. I feel sorry for the breakfast servers - many times they do more work than the dinner shift and get paltry tips.


My SIL was a waitress for many years in a popular Italian restaurant. She made less than minimum wage, but made $350-$500 a night in tips....She supported herself and 3 kids, and only worked 4 days a week...Of course with her time on the job, she was able to cherry pick the best paying shifts...

A few years back, my company sold it's small engine carburetor business to a place in Tralee Ireland...The engineers that came over here, filled up their luggage with condoms....At that time they were illegal in Ireland, and they said they would make a fortune...


----------



## tech-novelist

*LittleDeer* said:


> What has the refugee (not migrant) crisis got to do with redistributing the wealth, and giving less to huge corporations and more to the everyday people? Separate issue.
> 
> My cousing lives in Swedin, he loves it and his Swedish fiancé and all of her family love their system of redistribution (which is even higher than here).
> 
> People saying it doesn't work, that's a load of rubbish, if you look at evidence about who are the happiest and healthiest it's the countries that give back to the people, redistribute wealth fairly so that everyone has healthcare and a high level of free education, access to decent housing and earns a good minimum wage.


Actually, Sweden is arguably less socialist than the US, and is moving further away from the command-and-control model:

https://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/sweden-not-a-socialist-standard-bearer-a


----------



## tech-novelist

unbelievable said:


> What percentage of climate research funding comes from the government? What percentage of a hospital's revenue comes from government? What percentage of the nation's education industry funding comes from government? If it's dangerous for WalMart why is it not far more dangerous for the scientific community, the education sector, and the health sector?


It is.


----------



## unbelievable

Always Learning said:


> With the upcoming election I see the term "Income Inequality" thrown around a lot. Can someone please explain what it means. The only possible meaning I can see is if two people are doing the same job at the same company and at the same performance level, but one is getting paid more, that would be "Income Inequality".
> 
> To me it appears that the way the term is being thrown around it is just a way to further demonize the more successful people in the US. What would "Income Equality" look like, Communism?


It means exactly what you suggest. Communism.


----------



## optimalprimus

technovelist said:


> Actually, Sweden is arguably less socialist than the US, and is moving further away from the command-and-control model:
> 
> https://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/sweden-not-a-socialist-standard-bearer-a


I'd like to see your reaction to your swedish taxes!


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> It means exactly what you suggest. Communism.


Bloody hell the spirit of Senator McCarthy lives on...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Portugal are obviously looking over at the US thinking "filthy commies".

I'll give you a hint, there are shades of grey in the real world. Not everything is communism or capitalism, good or evil.

Having binary thinking makes one almost useless at considering any real world problem.


----------



## unbelievable

optimalprimus said:


> Bloody hell the spirit of Senator McCarthy lives on...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
> 
> Portugal are obviously looking over at the US thinking "filthy commies".
> 
> I'll give you a hint, there are shades of grey in the real world. Not everything is communism or capitalism, good or evil.
> 
> Having binary thinking makes one almost useless at considering any real world problem.


If one is against income inequality common sense would advise that they are for income equality. Every one here in support of this minimum wage increase has argued for it on the basis that the workers need it, not that it relates to the value of their service or production. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a very well known Marxist slogan. 

"Communists want to ensure that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life." 

Communist Manifesto Chapter 2 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver


----------



## unbelievable

"Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form." Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm 


What Marx is describing here is wage equality. If that is the goal, the goal is Communism.


----------



## tech-novelist

optimalprimus said:


> I'd like to see your reaction to your swedish taxes!


I don't like taxes, and in fact I don't know anyone who likes taxes, at least the ones they personally pay.

But taxes are only part of the harm done by government. Spying on the citizens, arbitrary confiscation of property, and incarceration for doing things that don't harm anyone else, to give just a few random examples, are even worse.

It just so happens that high taxes *tend *to go along with high levels of those other intrusions, but the correlation is not perfect. And even though I have paid quite a bit in taxes in the past few years, I'm more concerned about those other types of intrusions than I am with the level of taxes I personally pay.

So if Sweden's government is less intrusive than the US government in those other ways, I might be willing to make the trade-off of higher taxes and less of those other intrusions.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

unbelievable said:


> If one is against income inequality common sense would advise that they are for income equality. Every one here in support of this minimum wage increase has argued for it on the basis that the workers need it, not that it relates to the value of their service or production. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a very well known Marxist slogan.
> 
> "Communists want to ensure that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life."
> 
> Communist Manifesto Chapter 2 Summary and Analysis | GradeSaver


and just what is the laborer supposed to do if their services or skills are not currently needed - or they are sick or old.

do they just starve, or is the wealth stolen from other laborers to carry those who haven't stored anything or created passive or fourth estate wealth? Who has the non-value adding job (ie non-paying!?) of deciding what the old and infirm deserve. What stops favoritism and nepotism, especially amongst the committee and task allocators? What if one laborer is not working hard, and others are more skillful, or is doing a job the laborer enjoys but is hopeless and wasteful at (eg designing unwanted software apps)... what about if that laborer taking their own risk, invents something that is a disuptive technology (eg overnight/centralised courier-ing that their expert peers say is impossible and not worthwhile; where do the rewards go. Should children like young Mr Gates be allowed access to expensive toys and computer hardware - or cripples in wheelchairs be given enough resources to study advanced physics and maths while their fellows without such preferment labor in dead end factories.)

Capitalism is about personal risk, personal and individual right of ownership to what that person produces. It is far fairer to the laborer than many other group ownership or community-order systems.
However one needs be aware the diffence between Capitalism and Corporate Feudalism. In the later your company owns everything, you are the owned slave for your duration, and you must use your master currency to purchase at their shops and only finance from those barons banks.

What most people think when they hear "capitalism" is actually modern Feudalism. And "the system" and "the government" (the First and Second Estate) like to keep the dumb peasants in the dark about it.


----------



## unbelievable

What were whalers supposed to do after Rockefeller developed Kerosene? What were railroad men supposed to do after the invention of the automobile? If there are no positions for your job skills in your area, you have a couple choices. You can move to another location where those jobs exist or you can learn skills for the jobs that are in your area. 

My job requires that I remain in decent physical shape. A bullet or a car crash could end that in a second. In anticipation for such an event, I have developed other skills, education, and training because I've grown accustomed to eating and I'd hate to give that up. People get old. People become disabled. Technology changes and skills that are viable today might not be viable 20 years from now. All of those are predictable possibilities and we should prepare for them. I have fire insurance for my home and I think it'd be pretty risky to not have it. Artificially inflating wages is a great way to make sure your job becomes obsolete.


----------



## optimalprimus

technovelist said:


> I don't like taxes, and in fact I don't know anyone who likes taxes, at least the ones they personally pay.
> 
> But taxes are only part of the harm done by government. Spying on the citizens, arbitrary confiscation of property, and incarceration for doing things that don't harm anyone else, to give just a few random examples, are even worse.
> 
> It just so happens that high taxes *tend *to go along with high levels of those other intrusions, but the correlation is not perfect. And even though I have paid quite a bit in taxes in the past few years, I'm more concerned about those other types of intrusions than I am with the level of taxes I personally pay.
> 
> So if Sweden's government is less intrusive than the US government in those other ways, I might be willing to make the trade-off of higher taxes and less of those other intrusions.


Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage but wages at the bottom end are very high, mainly due to lots of regulation and collective bargaining. 

I'm not sure what the other stuff you mention has to do with this thread.


----------



## optimalprimus

unbelievable said:


> "Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form." Karl Marx. Critique of the Gotha Programme
> 
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
> 
> 
> What Marx is describing here is wage equality. If that is the goal, the goal is Communism.


Repeat after me....NOBODY ON THIS THREAD HAS ADVOCATED TOTAL INCOME EQUALITY. 

THERE ARE USUALLY MORE THAN TWO ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION. 

TOTAL CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE NOT THE ONLY ANSWERS AVAILABLE.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

unbelievable said:


> What were whalers supposed to do after Rockefeller developed Kerosene? What were railroad men supposed to do after the invention of the automobile? If there are no positions for your job skills in your area, you have a couple choices. You can move to another location where those jobs exist or you can learn skills for the jobs that are in your area.
> 
> My job requires that I remain in decent physical shape. A bullet or a car crash could end that in a second. In anticipation for such an event, I have developed other skills, education, and training because I've grown accustomed to eating and I'd hate to give that up. People get old. People become disabled. Technology changes and skills that are viable today might not be viable 20 years from now. All of those are predictable possibilities and we should prepare for them. I have fire insurance for my home and I think it'd be pretty risky to not have it. Artificially inflating wages is a great way to make sure your job becomes obsolete.


The whalers retrain _themselves_ - but in a community lead system you can't do that. You only get one vote (if you're lucky). One day you the upcoming lackey after 20 years labor, head of the carpenters guild, next you're shovelling slops in your community leaders sons pub - and your missus is annoyed because she was with you the whole way and now you're a nobody. Don't like your new job? tough, you don't want to ejected as a dissident.

Notice how the communists and socialists all think they getting a voting say in their new order - none of them want to work the sewers or the backbreaking work in the farms, and "someone else" (aka "the man behind the tree") is going to invent and create all the technology to make their dreams magically work; they just get to direct and work where they think fit.

And yes, I'm great at 2400baud modems and DRDos, and can even use sliderules and even a spokeshave


----------



## Runs like Dog

optimalprimus said:


> I'd like to see your reaction to your swedish taxes!


Taxes in Sweden, if invoked here would cause a huge level of discontent - - - for the poor. EVERYONE is taxed from the first dollar regardless of income. At more or less the same rate. The social welfare is on a different, parallel track that pays people back based on topline income not bottomline income. Even people on welfare are taxed at the same rate and then recompensated in a secondary or tertiary stream. Can you image if you told the 47% of American households that pay no Federal income tax that they now have a 41% tax rate and that the government will work out how to pay them back for that downstream?


----------



## LongWalk

The US has millions of illegal immigrants who work for whatever wage they can negotiate. Presumably they will not be included in any increase, at least directly. 

If the minimum wage rises, more illegal immigrants will be attracted to the US to replace the expensive locals.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I read an article yesterday that Portland's hipsters are angry that now they have to work full time jobs to afford to live in Portland


----------



## Fozzy

Runs like Dog said:


> I read an article yesterday that Portland's hipsters are angry that now they have to work full time jobs to afford to live in Portland


Of course they're angry. How are you supposed to find a job looking like this?


----------



## LongWalk

Sweden is awash with cheap foreign labor, illegal and legal. Tax evasion is driving force.


----------



## Justinian

unbelievable said:


> ... Every one here in support of this minimum wage increase has argued for it on the basis that the workers need it, not that it relates to the value of their service or production.


Exactly!

I once had an employee, very reliable and honest, but mediocre in performance. Since his pay was based largely on commission he usually earned a lot less than several of his co-workers, and he knew it.

He worked for me for a little over seven years. When he started he had two kids, when he left he had five. Every time he added to his family he would ask for a raise. I always did what I could, but to pay him more than what he was contributing to profits would not make business sense. 

We had many talks about the difference between "need" and "worth". I was always big on detailed reports and charts, and I showed him why the other guys were doing so much better, and what he could do to improve his earnings. He tried, but was never able to improve his performance much.

When I talked about the high cost of raising so many kids he would become annoyed. He said that he and his wife had always wanted a big family, and it was nobody's business but theirs. He was right of course, the size of his family was none of my business, and also not my responsibility.

As the years went by the financial pressure increased on him, even with both he and his wife working, he was always behind on his bills. He became an angry man, and most of his anger was directed at me.

One day he suddenly blew up in the middle of the shop and started throwing things and yelling about me, how greedy I was, how he was doing all the work and I was making all the money. He packed up his things and left.

I later heard that he and his wife had another kid, and was he working at a job that was paying less than the one he had with me. There was no way he was surviving without a lot of government assistance.

It has been a long time, but I still think about that guy. I still feel bad about what happened, I actually liked him, but I just could not help him.


----------



## karole

Justinian, my husband and I own a business too, so I can relate to your post. The Employers are always made out to be the bad guys. You can't help someone that doesn't help themselves.


----------



## Blondilocks

"Every one here in support of this minimum wage increase has argued for it on the basis that the workers need it, not that it relates to the value of their service or production."

Unless my memory is deceiving me, it seems that every one here on this thread who is supporting a minimal wage increase for the U.S. don't live in the U.S. WTH?


----------



## optimalprimus

Blondilocks said:


> "Every one here in support of this minimum wage increase has argued for it on the basis that the workers need it, not that it relates to the value of their service or production."
> 
> Unless my memory is deceiving me, it seems that every one here on this thread who is supporting a minimal wage increase for the U.S. don't live in the U.S. WTH?


How many of you are from Seattle?

I'm not supporting an increase in the US minimum wage. Please read my posts if you're going to comment on them. 

I'm trying to have an intelligent evidence-based conversation on the pros and cons.

But i can see that this isn't what the majority in this thread are here for. Over and out.


----------



## Blondilocks

Did I mention your name? No. Did I say you were for an increase in the minimum wage? No.


The world doesn't revolve around you so get your knickers out of their twist. I can see how you could think that since you have been rude and surly to just about every poster on this threqd. You're not all that & a bag of chips. So, posters didn't want to take the time to look up all your research material & blogs - big deal. And, if you didn't notice this web site is called Talk About Marriage - if you want to talk about economics in a serious and bona fide manner then sign up on an economics web site.

Over and out? We can only hope.


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> And my counterpoints have been about the fact that I disagree, and why.
> 
> I think that's why it's called a "forum".


After almost 20 years on them, yes I know what a forum is 

Maybe my post was too subtle. It is great to have differing opinions however you asked me, specifically, a question that was irrelevant to my points on immoral corporate citizenship.

How employees chose to live their lives is something I am neutral on. It doesn't work to try and head off my POV by sidestepping to blaming the employees. 

I don't live in the US but do live in a country that has one of the strongest economies in the world. Australia was one of the few that came through the GFC relatively unscathed and we enjoy a particularly high standard of living. Seems many here have a very insular POV, scared to see what is going on outside their doorstep.


----------



## Always Learning

As far as "income Inequality " goes what I want to know is who gets to decide what is the correct amount a CEO or upper management get paid. We see all these reports where a CEO 30 years ago made 30 times the amount of the average employee. Now it is closer to something like 300 times (I did not check the exact numbers but you get the point).

So who gets to decide what multiplier is fair. Do we really want the government doing that. That is a very dangerous slope to walk.

For all of you outside the US, how do your countries handle "Income Inequality"? (serious question, I really want to know)


----------



## Runs like Dog

In Denmark the average wage is something like $39-50/hr plus benefits. Which is great if you can get it. Again though, the transition to that entails taxing everyone some fantastic amount to make it work. If you're willing to sign on the working poor for a 50% tax rate, let me know.


----------



## unbelievable

Runs like Dog said:


> I read an article yesterday that Portland's hipsters are angry that now they have to work full time jobs to afford to live in Portland


Aw, shucks. One can be a "hipster" in a city with a lower cost of living. I suggest they put their sandals to walking.


----------



## unbelievable

Runs like Dog said:


> In Denmark the average wage is something like $39-50/hr plus benefits. Which is great if you can get it. Again though, the transition to that entails taxing everyone some fantastic amount to make it work. If you're willing to sign on the working poor for a 50% tax rate, let me know.


I've been to Denmark. Lovely place. Lovely people. I thought prices were pretty outrageous.


----------



## optimalprimus

Always Learning said:


> As far as "income Inequality " goes what I want to know is who gets to decide what is the correct amount a CEO or upper management get paid. We see all these reports where a CEO 30 years ago made 30 times the amount of the average employee. Now it is closer to something like 300 times (I did not check the exact numbers but you get the point).
> 
> So who gets to decide what multiplier is fair. Do we really want the government doing that. That is a very dangerous slope to walk.
> 
> For all of you outside the US, how do your countries handle "Income Inequality"? (serious question, I really want to know)


Hi always learning. This is a big question! Happy to give a UK perspective.

Income inequality has been increasing (by pretty much all measures) in the UK since the 1960s. The generally accepted ultimate causes of this are technological change and globalisation, particularly in finance.

The electorate in the UK care about it, as there is a good majority who think the gap in incomes between the top and bottom is too big, but I'd inagine not as strong as most other European nations where the history of war and trade unionism contributes to stronger preferences for solidarity.

Noone directly decides whether the gap is too high. At a micro level, some businesses will set executive pay with reference to their workforce but this is very rare. More common on the continent again. People express their preferences by voting, and the government decides what, if any, policy changes to make.

Broadly there are 4 things i think govts do to directly affect income inequality, although these things have other aims too

1) tax rich people
2) give benefits to poor people
3) set minimum wages
4) invest in services that disproportionately help poor people (like education and health)

The UK has largely settled on how much to tax the income of the rich, which has been 40-45% since the late 1980s. Still debates surface from time to time and the current opposition would tax the rich a lot more.

The UK introduced a minimum wage in 1998 and soon after started increasing 'in-work' benefit payments to people working but not earning not much. This was intended to increase the incomes of the people at the bottom and had some effect, with no discernible impact on employment.

The current right wing government (although they're not much like the current republicans in the US) has decided to increase the minimum wage but reduce the in-work benefits

Our benefit levels are generally much lower than continental europe but higher than the US.

The government since the mid 1990s has put lots of money into health and education, and obviously both systems are free at the point of use to people. Lots of focus on tackling bad schools in poor areas for instance, with some success (some would argue at great cost)


----------



## optimalprimus

Always Learning said:


> As far as "income Inequality " goes what I want to know is who gets to decide what is the correct amount a CEO or upper management get paid. We see all these reports where a CEO 30 years ago made 30 times the amount of the average employee. Now it is closer to something like 300 times (I did not check the exact numbers but you get the point).
> 
> So who gets to decide what multiplier is fair. Do we really want the government doing that. That is a very dangerous slope to walk.
> 
> For all of you outside the US, how do your countries handle "Income Inequality"? (serious question, I really want to know)


Oh and on exec pay in particular this might be interesting

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...7-executive-remuneration-discussion-paper.pdf


----------



## dash74

$15 a hour people dont know whats around the corner the 3d printer will kill walmart and all the plastic china junk it will be a global wind of change that will impact manufacturing in every corner of the earth as markets and unions evaporate over night 

You have to look to the past to see the future I see a time where small boutique manufacturers and true artisan craftsman will come back in to favor in the age of instant print anything even food



Crave a burger? Soon, a 3-D printer could make it 
Nike Inc Says 3D-Printed Shoes Are on the Horizon -- The Motley Fool
3-D-printed car could hit streets next year

Aerospace - 3D Printing Industry


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> ... Maybe my post was too subtle. It is great to have differing opinions however you asked me, specifically, a question that was irrelevant to my points on immoral corporate citizenship ...


While I did quote your post, my questions were meant for members in general. After re-reading my post I can see where that was not clear. I apologize for that, and I will try to be clearer in the future.

Our points of view are generally shaped by our experiences. I spent most of my working years as an employer, but did spend many as an employee as well. I think I have a good understanding of both points of view.

What I don't understand is why employers paying no more than necessary for labor should be considered immoral. It's how business works. Labor is typically the biggest cost in any business.

What I do find immoral is having more children than one can afford, expecting one's fellow citizens to help support those children, and knowing full well that even with assistance those children are still likely to endure low standard of living.


----------



## karole

justinian said:


> while i did quote your post, my questions were meant for members in general. After re-reading my post i can see where that was not clear. I apologize for that, and i will try to be clearer in the future.
> 
> Our points of view are generally shaped by our experiences. I spent most of my working years as an employer, but did spend many as an employee as well. I think i have a good understanding of both points of view.
> 
> What i don't understand is why employers paying no more than necessary for labor should be considered immoral. It's how business works. Labor is typically the biggest cost in any business.
> 
> What i do find immoral is having more children than one can afford, expecting one's fellow citizens to help support those children, and knowing full well that even with assistance those children are still likely to endure low standard of living.


great post!!


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> What I do find immoral is having more children than one can afford, expecting one's fellow citizens to help support those children, and knowing full well that even with assistance those children are still likely to endure low standard of living.



This point probably deserves its own thread. Population growth as a matter of population (age) demographics is a slow moving train. However, I have mixed feelings on immorality of an attempt to control population growth based on the assumptions made above. We also can't afford people to reach the age of 65 based on our current population demographic tends. Would that too be immoral? We are becoming less of the typical pyramid and more of a square. There are places far worse off than us - Japan, China and Brazil, their pyramid is soon to stand on its apex.


----------



## unbelievable

There is a huge difference between avoiding pregnancy and exterminating the elderly as cost saving measures. Avoiding pregnancy until one can afford a child is an example of common sense. Exterminating the elderly is an example of murder. It must require a great deal of weed smoking to find moral relevance between the two. 

This is why social programs are ultimately bad ideas. Once society gets in the business of feeding and caring for people, it soon presumes to have the moral authority to determine who lives or dies and life becomes a privilege granted or withheld by government instead of a natural right. It's not your business to control the population. The economy will do that as long as we assume the country is inhabited by reasonably intelligent, reasonably responsible people. In the absence of welfare programs most people would not create more kids than they could afford. If social security were dispensed with most reasonable people would become more involved in saving and preparing for their own retirement. They'd also have an added incentive to make their labor as valuable as possible so they could earn enough to permit substantial investments for their own future. If the health expense of the elderly came out of their own estate rather than from taxpayers, many elderly citizens would opine that some treatments were simply not worth the cost and would elect to naturally depart, leaving greater wealth for their children. In a world where people took care of their own affairs you wouldn't be vexed with questions regarding the morality of allowing certain groups of people to exist because it would be none of your business. 

Justinian is right. It is immoral for those who can't feed kids to make kids.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> This is why social programs are ultimately bad ideas. Once society gets in the business of feeding and *caring* for people, ...



And, thus my point of demographics in terms of our "moral" budget. No matter how one wants to paint it, the numbers in this are there and they don't lie. 

Is it equally moral to live beyond the fixed actuary tables dealt with in the Speaker O'Neill and President Reagan agreements to fix long term benefits? Is it moral for citizens to equally push the limits of health statistics, living beyond their healthy means - obesity, diabetes, etc? Will we be able to afford the retirement of so many over the coming decades given our age demographics? 

If one cannot make beyond a bare minimum wage one cannot possibly save for their own retirement. Even if one can save for their own retirement, very few can save enough for the anticipated care of older age. We are a demographic accident ready to happen without fixes. Many other countries are huge train wrecks.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> ... I have mixed feelings on immorality of an attempt to control population growth based on the assumptions made above.


I didn't mention controlling population growth. I'm not against people having all the children they want.

My point was that people shouldn't have children they can't afford and expect others to help pay for them. That includes asking employers to pay them more than they're worth to cover their needs.

I think most first-time parents go through a little sticker shock over what it costs to raise a child. But it should be no surprise when you get to the second, third, fourth, or fifth.

In the U. S. (as of 2014) a family with one child is considered at the poverty level at an annual household income of about $16,000, with five children it rises to about $36,000. It's easy to see how making the wrong decisions regarding children can plunge a low income household into poverty.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> I didn't mention controlling population growth. I'm not against people having all the children they want.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that people shouldn't have children they can't afford and expect others to help pay for them. That includes asking employers to pay them more than they're worth to cover their needs.
> 
> 
> 
> I think most first-time parents go through a little sticker shock over what it costs to raise a child. But it should be no surprise when you get to the second, third, fourth, or fifth.
> 
> 
> 
> In the U. S. (as of 2014) a family with one child is considered at the poverty level at an annual household income of about $16,000, with five children it rises to about $36,000. It's easy to see how making the wrong decisions regarding children can plunge a low income household into poverty.



So if we don't raise minimum wage and a couple can only afford one child, then what happens to the long term population demographics of the country? Add, to it the anti-immigration stance we have as a historical precedence?


----------



## Ikaika

The double edge sword, as people make more money, above $100,000/annual, birth rates go down. Most couples who make more than $150,000/annually have one child.

Demographics are a slow moving trains.


----------



## Ikaika

Reality is we really need a larger, lower wage workforce in the coming decades to support the increasing numbers of retiring boomers who are not healthy but still expected to live longer. 

How does this square with raising the minimum wage? It does not in terms of who we are demographically. Just where is that sweet spot, is the larger question to answer.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> So if we don't raise minimum wage and a couple can only afford one child, then what happens to the long term population demographics of the country? Add, to it the anti-immigration stance we have as a historical precedence?





Ikaika said:


> The double edge sword, as people make more money, above $100,000/annual, birth rates go down. Most couples who make more than $150,000/annually have one child.
> 
> Demographics are a slow moving trains.


All good points.

I think most of the anti-immigrant sentiment is directed toward those who don't come here the legal way.

I think those who worry about the toll the human population is taking on the earth's resources would be happy to see a population reduction. On the other hand, strong economies (and jobs) are built on growth, and that includes population.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> All good points.
> 
> 
> 
> I think most of the anti-immigrant sentiment is directed toward those who don't come here the legal way.
> 
> 
> 
> I think those who worry about the toll the human population is taking on the earth's resources would be happy to see a population reduction. On the other hand, strong economies (and jobs) are built on growth, and that includes population.



Let's not forget, our economy requires low wage labor, and like it or not illegal immigration is providing this labor force. So, what happens to the economy when we deport all the illegal immigrants?


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> Reality is we really need a larger, lower wage workforce in the coming decades to support the increasing numbers of retiring boomers who are not healthy but still expected to live longer.
> 
> How does this square with raising the minimum wage? It does not in terms of who we are demographically. Just where is that sweet spot, is the larger question to answer.


Currently, about 4% of workers in the U. S. are at minimum wage, so we're talking about a very small group. 

Past raises of the minimum wage have always in small increments, so the effect to the economy was almost not measurable. There has never been anything close 60% jump that's now being discussed, so no one can accurately predict what will happen.

One thing that seems likely is that automation and outsourcing will increase because they both will become much more cost effective. These have been big low wage job killers for decades, and it can only get worse.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> Let's not forget, our economy requires low wage labor, and like it or not illegal immigration is providing this labor force. So, what happens to the economy when we deport all the illegal immigrants?


In my area, illegals are taking many formerly decent paying jobs (e.g. truck driving, construction) and doing them for less money. If they were to leave, I'm guessing the jobs would go back to citizens and legal immigrants, and possibly at their previous wages.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> Currently, about 4% of workers in the U. S. are at minimum wage, so we're talking about a very small group.
> 
> 
> 
> Past raises of the minimum wage have always in small increments, so the effect to the economy was almost not measurable. There has never been anything close 60% jump that's now being discussed, so no one can accurately predict what will happen.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that seems likely is that automation and outsourcing will increase because they both will become much more cost effective. These have been big low wage job killers for decades, and it can only get worse.



The reason why we have reported percentage of worker at minimum wage at only 4%: 1. This number in the labor statistics database only includes full time workers. 2. It does not include the illegal immigrant work force. 

It is true that raises typically happen in small increments, however since 1974, the average pay raise continued to lag equal increases in inflation over each decade. So, while we may not see huge jumps in pay raises, and the average worker may not fall into minimum wage, most are behind in wages as compared with cost of living across the board. The lower one starts in on their career the further they fall behind. 

Even if this is about the minimum wage it could easily be about all our wages. But, once you address that trend others will follow.

Automation can steal some labor jobs but even that is a mixed bag. The investment in technology and maintenance has to be weighed against the large (nearly endless) low wage labor we see parts of Asia today, but Africa tomorrow (next low wage labor market). Yes, Americans have to compete but that competition will not pay the taxes, we need to support our aging demographics problem. What to do, what to do?


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> In my area, illegals are taking many formerly decent paying jobs (e.g. truck driving, construction) and doing them for less money. If they were to leave, I'm guessing the jobs would go back to citizens and legal immigrants, and possibly at their previous wages.



Why would a trucking business pay you more when they can get it for less? Good luck with that one.

You don't like minimum wage hikes but expect to be paid a decent wage, when the industry can get it (your line of work) cheaper. Hmm


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> Let's not forget, our economy requires low wage labor, and like it or not illegal immigration is providing this labor force. So, what happens to the economy when we deport all the illegal immigrants?


We will no longer have just a 62% labor force participation rate and wages will naturally rise, driven by the market. There is a difference between low-skilled jobs and low wage jobs. Many construction jobs and manufacturing jobs are being performed by illegals now, primarily because their labor is cheaper. Those aren't low wage or low skilled jobs or jobs Americans won't do. Those are jobs Americans are finding difficult to get.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> We will no longer have just a 62% labor force participation rate and wages will naturally rise, driven by the market. There is a difference between low-skilled jobs and low wage jobs. Many construction jobs and manufacturing jobs are being performed by illegals now, primarily because their labor is cheaper. Those aren't low wage or low skilled jobs or jobs Americans won't do. Those are jobs Americans are finding difficult to get.



You are right, these are not low skilled jobs. My question again, why would employers pay more for these jobs (American workers) when they can get it cheaper (illegal immigrant labor force). 

Even if we deported all the illegal immigrants, why would the employer pay more?


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> While I did quote your post, my questions were meant for members in general. After re-reading my post I can see where that was not clear. I apologize for that, and I will try to be clearer in the future.
> 
> Our points of view are generally shaped by our experiences. I spent most of my working years as an employer, but did spend many as an employee as well. I think I have a good understanding of both points of view.
> 
> *What I don't understand is why employers paying no more than necessary for labor should be considered immoral. It's how business works. Labor is typically the biggest cost in any business.
> *
> What I do find immoral is having more children than one can afford, expecting one's fellow citizens to help support those children, and knowing full well that even with assistance those children are still likely to endure low standard of living.


I only mentioned WM as a pp raised them as a company to aspire to, the great American dream, I totally disagree unless you want the dream to be based on poor treatment of employees. I see why they would pay no more than legally needed but the overall set up is immoral, the pushing employees to supplement with Govt handouts is just one aspect. The stand over tactics used against employees who speak out, the subsistence lifestyle that is created etc.

Coming from a successful business background I have a different POV, combine that with my current path of Philanthropy and it makes my POV of a business like WM extremely low. Yes they are successful financially and if that is the only goal then they are the winners.

Personally I think as business leaders people and Corporations have a moral obligation to legitimately give back to society and to care for the well being of its employees and not just to get tax breaks and publicity.

As to the side issue of people having too many children, if looked at as a separate issue I totally agree with you except I would not call it immoral, more like irresponsible.


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> You are right, these are not low skilled jobs. My question again, why would employers pay more for these jobs (American workers) when they can get it cheaper (illegal immigrant labor force).
> 
> Even if we deported all the illegal immigrants, why would the employer pay more?


If we remove illegal laborers we are left with American laborers who have 11 million fewer people to compete against for jobs. Employers will pay higher wages because they will have to do so or go out of business. If the majority of people sneaking across the borders had the skills and education to perform your job, you would probably be unemployed. If not out of work, you wouldn't be in a position to ask for a raise. 

That's the lunacy of this whole argument. The same people who want to raise the minimum wage seem to be the same people who want amnesty for illegals. Illegal laborers are helping to keep Americans in entry level jobs. "Creating" 250,000 jobs means nothing if you allow 500,000 adult immigrants in. When the economy is roaring and unemployment is very low we can open the immigrant spigot a bit.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> If we remove illegal laborers we are left with American laborers who have 11 million fewer people to compete against for jobs. Employers will pay higher wages because they will have to do so or go out of business. If the majority of people sneaking across the borders had the skills and education to perform your job, you would probably be unemployed. If not out of work, you wouldn't be in a position to ask for a raise. .



Who says they will have to pay higher wages? 11 million is a drop in the bucket compared to 300M

Sounds like a union demand.


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> Who says they will have to pay higher wages? 11 million is a drop in the bucket compared to 300M
> 
> The laws of economics. We don't have 300M out of work.
> 
> Sounds like a union demand.


----------



## Ikaika

How many do we have out of work? And, still why would an employer pay higher if they don't have to?


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> ... You don't like minimum wage hikes but expect to be paid a decent wage, when the industry can get it (your line of work) cheaper. Hmm


I never said I don't like minimum wage hikes. I said I don't think they do much good, but have done minimal harm in the past. 

The current raise being discussed is so much larger than anything ever seen before I don't think anyone can say what good or harm it would do.

By the way, I retired at an early age, so I don't have to worry about wages (or social security).  I can tell you that discussing our economy is a lot more fun when watching the turmoil from the bleachers.


----------



## Holland

My 13 yr old daughter nailed it in one minute "why don't they just increase the min. wage slowly, like a dollar a year?"

As for the comment earlier about there being no wage increase in 30 years for the middle bracket, what is that all about? Does the cost of living never go up in America? We have yearly wage reviews and increases for the most part which works well in our economy.


----------



## Ikaika

Holland said:


> My 13 yr old daughter nailed it in one minute "why don't they just increase the min. wage slowly, like a dollar a year?"
> 
> 
> 
> As for the comment earlier about there being no wage increase in 30 years for the middle bracket, what is that all about? Does the cost of living never go up in America? We have yearly wage reviews and increases for the most part which works well in our economy.



My yearly step increases were at or below inflation over the last twenty years. I had one actual raise in that same time period and as of two years ago, all wages are frozen, no step increases. 

If I don't like it, they can hire the next person up, cheaper.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> ... the pushing employees to supplement with Govt handouts is just one aspect.
> 
> As to the side issue of people having too many children, if looked at as a separate issue I totally agree with you except I would not call it immoral, more like irresponsible.


If people take jobs that were not meant for supporting large families, whose fault is it if they need government handouts?

That's the part of your complaint I can't understand, how is WalMart pushing their employees to the handouts?

Any job that only requires a day or two of training will never properly support one child, let alone a larger family. 

Bottom line, become more skilled or forego the kids.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> As for the comment earlier about there being no wage increase in 30 years for the middle bracket, what is that all about? Does the cost of living never go up in America? We have yearly wage reviews and increases for the most part which works well in our economy.


I'd have to see the data on the 30 years of frozen wages. 

Every working person I know (here in America) gets at least an annual review and usually some sort of increase in pay.

Inflation and CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases have been pretty mild for several years, resulting in lower increases in wages.


----------



## Holland

Justinian said:


> I'd have to see the data on the 30 years of frozen wages.
> 
> Every working person I know (here in America) gets at least an annual review and usually some sort of increase in pay.
> 
> Inflation and CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases have been pretty mild for several years, resulting in lower increases in wages.


Maybe the pp that posted this comment could link to some data.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> I'd have to see the data on the 30 years of frozen wages.
> 
> 
> 
> *Every working person I know (here in America) gets at least an annual review and usually some sort of increase in pay.*
> 
> 
> 
> Inflation and CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases have been pretty mild for several years, resulting in lower increases in wages.



nope, not necessarily for salary workers.


----------



## Justinian

Holland said:


> ... the pushing employees to supplement with Govt handouts is just one aspect.


One more point on this.

Our food stamp program (SNAP), which is so vital to low income families, saw an increase in participation of 70% from 2008 to 2013. Of course the sagging economy had a lot to do with this, but during those years the requirements were also eased and applying was made easier, which helped cause the whopping increase.

Participation in this program has been on a steady decline since 2013, but as of August 2015, one in 7 American families still participates. On the other hand, it is estimated that one in 5 families that do not participate, would qualify for the help.

In a speech in late 2014, President Obama expressed concern over people that needed and qualified for SNAP, but didn't understand the program. He called on employers of low wage workers to make information about it available to them.

If an employer puts this kind of information on their website or bulletin board, should that be considered a good thing or bad thing?


----------



## Justinian

Justinian said:


> I'd have to see the data on the 30 years of frozen wages.
> 
> Every working person I know (here in America) gets at least an annual review and usually some sort of increase in pay.
> 
> Inflation and CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases have been pretty mild for several years, resulting in lower increases in wages.





Ikaika said:


> nope, not necessarily for salary workers.


Every salaried worker I know does, but then, I never claimed to know everyone. 

Got a data source?


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> Every salaried worker I know does, but then, I never claimed to know everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Got a data source?



I have no source and labor laws are not present on this given issue, other than part of what is being discussed here. 

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> How many do we have out of work? And, still why would an employer pay higher if they don't have to?


About 93 million Americans over 15 aren't working.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> About 93 million Americans over 15 aren't working.



So we send back 11 million so that 93 M get to compete for those jobs. Other than the current wage minimum laws, why would an employer pay more? Seems like next man up.

Demanding more seems like a union negotiation.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> So we send back 11 million so that 93 M get to compete for those jobs. Other than the current wage minimum laws, why would an employer pay more? Seems like next man up ...


That's assuming the entire 93 million would be competing for the jobs the 11 million have taken.

I don't think that would be the case.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> That's assuming the entire 93 million would be competing for the jobs the 11 million have taken.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that would be the case.



I won't argue with that, and I believe most employers will attempt to persuade the best workers to join or stay with their organization with comparable compensation. I do think there needs to be less black and white on so many of these issues, even if I tried to push that argument myself. 

I myself am not even convinced there is a sweet spot on what constitutes a minimum or fair wage. If there is, I don't know or I have not seen much to convince me on either side. I also think we need to recognize that our demographics are changing and much of the employment base as well as the overall economic dynamics is the horses pulling the economic cart.


----------



## Runs like Dog

There's nothing inherently bad or wrong with increasing wages. The problem is that social justice warriors demand it accomplish wondrous things instantly. Meanwhile rents are high, food is expensive and health care is unaffordable. If you want one number to fix everything you're delusional. The basic issue to establishing a 'living wage' is trying to come to grips with the costs of things. $15/hr? Fine. Now let's talk about why eggs are $6/dozen. It's a hand in glove scenario.


----------



## unbelievable

Ikaika said:


> So we send back 11 million so that 93 M get to compete for those jobs. Other than the current wage minimum laws, why would an employer pay more? Seems like next man up.
> 
> Demanding more seems like a union negotiation.


If an employer abuses a legal employee by withholding overtime wages or failure to pay minimum wage or by paying someone less on the basis of race, that employee can go to the state labor board. Where does an illegal employee go? 

Employers would end up paying more. They currently use illegal foreign labor because it's cheaper than legal domestic labor. That's the whole point of skirting the law by hiring illegals. 
Common sense would advise that if illegal labor was no longer available they would have no choice but to pay higher wages for the same work.


----------



## Ikaika

unbelievable said:


> If an employer abuses a legal employee by withholding overtime wages or failure to pay minimum wage or by paying someone less on the basis of race, that employee can go to the state labor board. Where does an illegal employee go?
> 
> 
> 
> Employers would end up paying more. They currently use illegal foreign labor because it's cheaper than legal domestic labor. That's the whole point of skirting the law by hiring illegals.
> 
> Common sense would advise that if illegal labor was no longer available they would have no choice but to pay higher wages for the same work.



So, yes... Would you be willing to work for minimum wage?


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> So, yes... Would you be willing to work for minimum wage?


My short answer is NO! Luckily, I've never had to.

The U. S. minimum wage (and 40 hour work week) was first signed in to law in 1938, and was set at 25 cents per hour.

When I first entered the work force the minimum wage was $1.00 per hour. My first job paid $1.25 per hour, so I can say that I've never had to work for minimum wage.


----------



## Ikaika

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/why-americans-wont-do-dirty-jobs-11092011.html#p1

Two articles juxtaposed to each other say a lot at this extreme.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center
> 
> Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs - Businessweek
> 
> Two articles juxtaposed to each other say a lot at this extreme.


Interesting.

When I read this type of report I always wonder how they gather the data.

How can we really know how many people are in the U. S. illegally, and where they are living?


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> When I read this type of report I always wonder how they gather the data.
> 
> 
> 
> How can we really know how many people are in the U. S. illegally, and where they are living?



I believe most of this pew research is based on data collected by employers of illegal immigrants. If they did enough diverse samplings then run an ANOVA population statistical analysis it likely represents a fairly good representation.


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> I believe most of this pew research is based on data collected by employers of illegal immigrants ...


Will employers want to report (to anyone) that they have illegals on their payroll?

Failing to withhold (and submit) income and social security taxes is a serious federal offense. An employer can't do that for someone with no social security number.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> Will employers want to report (to anyone) that they have illegals on their payroll?
> 
> 
> 
> Failing to withhold (and submit) income and social security taxes is a serious federal offense. An employer can't do that for someone with no social security number.



I don't know, read the Business Week article, most of these employers live in the real world. As well most of these employers are in states that either have little to gain or a lot to lose by going after them for these possible violation. Plus, the press has protected immunity on revealed sources of information. Who doesn't know which industries and employers hire illegals?


----------



## Justinian

Ikaika said:


> I don't know read the Business Week article, most of these employers live in the real world. As well most of these employers are in states that either have little to gain or a lot to lose by going after them for these possible violation. Plus, the press has protected immunity on revealed sources of information. Who doesn't know which industries and employers hire illegals?


As I said earlier, I just wonder how data is gathered for reports on illegal aliens, it seems to me it would be tough to get accurate info. Personally, I believe the are far more here than we think, or is reported.

However, I live near the Mexico border where the number is very high. My perception may be skewed.


----------



## Ikaika

Justinian said:


> As I said earlier, I just wonder how data is gathered for reports on illegal aliens, it seems to me it would be tough to get accurate info. Personally, I believe the are far more here than we think, or is reported.
> 
> 
> 
> However, I live near the Mexico border where the number is very high. My perception may be skewed.



Maybe rather than ask me, as I can only guess, send your inquiry to the Pew Research team. You might be surprised at how receptive they are to answer your question. 

On the other hand, there are almost zero illegal immigrants from our southern border in my state.

I did see a talk on how they collected data on demographics data. I was impressed.


----------



## larry.gray

Justinian said:


> Will employers want to report (to anyone) that they have illegals on their payroll?
> 
> Failing to withhold (and submit) income and social security taxes is a serious federal offense. An employer can't do that for someone with no social security number.


Most illegal aliens are working on the table. They are working under forged documents. 20 years ago stolen social security numbers where a big deal. The IRS would force you to prove that the illegal's income wasn't yours if someone was using your social security number. The IRS management realized that nothing was going to be done so they figured out how to identify the actual SSN holder and the illegals using the same number. The IRS creates a suffix to use internally. 

The employer sees none of this. They have the I9 with the 'proper' documents, they send in the taxes under the number and are OK under the law.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Hillary says she wants a $12 wage. Not sure how that's different or better. I would have doubled down and said 16.


----------



## weightlifter

Im not for a 15 dollar (Id say nine-ish to eleven-ish depending upon the state) minimum but some of these posts look a lot like country club elitism. The sad fact is that there are millions of people in this country still "working down" far below their skill set.
Over age 40 is the new 50 and over age 50 is the new 60.
Health care being a full time benefit further skews the economy making full time work even harder to get.

I actually know people making near minimum. Most are not nearly the morons or unemployable losers some here like to think. A LOT are over age 50.


----------



## Runs like Dog

In NYC you can be an illegal alien working a construction site for the city and be one of those guys who only holds up a sign that says "Stop" and "Slow" and be paid about $45/hr. Under the city's rules you are a legitimate construction 'professional' and you are entitled to that baseline wage whether you're in a union or even whether you're a citizen.


----------



## Justinian

weightlifter said:


> Im not for a 15 dollar (Id say nine-ish to eleven-ish depending upon the state) minimum but *some of these posts look a lot like country club elitism. The sad fact is that there are millions of people in this country still "working down" far below their skill set.*
> Over age 40 is the new 50 and over age 50 is the new 60.
> Health care being a full time benefit further skews the economy making full time work even harder to get.
> 
> I actually know people making near minimum. * Most are not nearly the morons or unemployable losers some here like to think. * A LOT are over age 50.


I've viewed this discussion as more about the value of certain jobs rather than the value of the people working them.


----------



## Starstarfish

Who gets to determine the "value" of a particular job?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Starstarfish said:


> Who gets to determine the "value" of a particular job?


Fast food workers in Detroit say their jobs are worth more than EMS people. Inherently this is the problem when the state wants to step in and determine that. Jobs aren't 'worth' anything more than a worker can get to do them.


----------



## Justinian

Starstarfish said:


> Who gets to determine the "value" of a particular job?


That would be the person who creates it, unless it falls under minimum wage.

If employers can't find qualified candidates for what they're offering, they can either leave the job unfilled or up the offer.

Supply and demand.


----------



## Woodchuck

In 2000 I worked for Poulan in Nashville Ar. I came in one day, and an entire assembly line was shut down. Tyson chicken, down the street had raised wages 5 cents, and about 40 of our employees jumped ship....The next day, ICE agents raided Tyson chicken, and shut down the whole plant....I wonder who called La Migra...


----------



## Ikaika

Pretty sure my stint in the military paid less than minimum wage if it was figured out hourly. This is definitely the case with graduate school, but the professor's grant did pay my tuition. And, no doubt, post-doc training was less than minimum compared to hours worked. But, I was single (through most of this) and no kids. Yummy ramen noodles kept me alive


----------

