I realize that most libertarians are free of things like empathy, emotions, responsibility to anyone but their own fucking selves...
Call me a buffoon... but what are you trying to say here, mike?
He's highlighting the typical, predictable reaction (of some) here and elsewhere that if you aren't completely on board with every aspect of gov't-directed "charity", then you must be a heartless bastard who eats live puppies.
My thoughts won't change. If the dollar had value then these people would be fine. Or are you proposing that the minimum wage be set higher?
Where should it be set?
I mean, if you're going to have one, it should at least be linked to (actual) inflation.
Whether you should have one in the first place is another story. I'm torn.
Why are you torn? Why would you be opposed to a minimum wage?
That's effectively what this thread is all about, isn't it? If you follow their argument to its logical conclusion, most folks that are against an increase in the minimum wage are really arguing that there shouldn't be a mandated minimum wage at all.
edit: Alternatively, I guess you could make an argument FOR the existence of a minimum wage while also arguing that it should not necessarily be a living wage. You could say that it's a check against uncounterable power in the form of companies/corps, but that raising it to or above living wage could, on the whole, demotivate folks from working their way up to realize some semblance of the "American Dream". I dunno just thinking out loud here.
This should make anyone with a functioning brain realize that our minimum wage is too low.
Do the math yourself. Someone working two minimum wage jobs will barely make enough to make ends meet. Are they lazy?
One would hope that you would not stage your career by working at a minumum wage and that it would be considered a starting point. If an employee can't start building skills and getting better pay, that is probably an employee that isn't going to last very long.
I made minimum wage for several years. Granted I had someone provide a roof over my head, but the experiance payed dividends in helping me get a good internship. (where i worked for free ... actually, now that i think about it i was paying to work there considering it was part of my courses :? )
most people have to pay rent/house payment when they're an adult. hell, some pay their parents a little something to help the family out, they are kids working a bullshit job after school
Where should it be set?[/quote]
I mean, if you're going to have one, it should at least be linked to (actual) inflation.
Whether you should have one in the first place is another story. I'm torn.[/quote]
Why are you torn? Why would you be opposed to a minimum wage?[/quote]
That's effectively what this thread is all about, isn't it? If you follow their argument to its logical conclusion, most folks that are against an increase in the minimum wage are really arguing that there shouldn't be a mandated minimum wage at all.[/quote]
i agree...there should be no minimum wage.
got me wrong
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
I mean, if you're going to have one, it should at least be linked to (actual) inflation.
Whether you should have one in the first place is another story. I'm torn.
Why are you torn? Why would you be opposed to a minimum wage?
That's effectively what this thread is all about, isn't it? If you follow their argument to its logical conclusion, most folks that are against an increase in the minimum wage are really arguing that there shouldn't be a mandated minimum wage at all.
I get the gist of the thread.
You are saying most folks and their in your response to me. I was curious to know your perspective and why you said you felt 'torn' as to whether or not there should be a minimum wage or not.
[He's highlighting the typical, predictable reaction (of some) here and elsewhere that if you aren't completely on board with every aspect of gov't-directed "charity", then you must be a heartless bastard who eats live puppies.
I prefer my puppies broasted.
They make to much noise and tend to knock my sauteed mashed potatos off my plate when I bite into a live puppie.
You are saying most folks and their in your response to me. I was curious to know your perspective and why you said you felt 'torn' as to whether or not there should be a minimum wage or not.
Likewise, I get the gist of your prior post. I chose to answer it as I did for a couple reasons, which are my own. Nevertheless, I updated my post w/ some further thoughts, though I doubt they'll satisfy your curiosity completely.
One would hope that you would not stage your career by working at a minumum wage and that it would be considered a starting point. If an employee can't start building skills and getting better pay, that is probably an employee that isn't going to last very long.
I made minimum wage for several years. Granted I had someone provide a roof over my head, but the experiance payed dividends in helping me get a good internship. (where i worked for free ... actually, now that i think about it i was paying to work there considering it was part of my courses :? )
most people have to pay rent/house payment when they're an adult. hell, some pay their parents a little something to help the family out, they are kids working a bullshit job after school
True ... but things won't improve if welfare is the only answer. It just sustains barely making it by.
So there are two option. Scrap it out between managing work and family for a few years while gradually improving ... or maintain current conditions.
The point of welfare isn't to make people rich, or well off, or even comfortable. You should barely be able to make ends meet while on it. I'm sorry, I'm off topic.
I think the point that Unsung is trying to make is that a minimum wage increase will be null and void after the price adjustment that follows from more dollars being forced into the system.
the dollars come from businesses, either they eat the costs or adjust their prices. There is more money in flow because people will most likely spend it. more money to be had, more demand on products, prices go up. hidden inflation in food is much more likely to happen in this scenario. A company puts 14ozs of cereal in a box instead of 16. The reason they do this is the cost of corn goes up (demand) and the cost of employee wages goes up (legislation).
It is a vicious circle unfortunately. The more you raise the minimum wage, the more things will cost those on minimum wage. Unless you perpetually raise it (impossible to maintain), or do your best to control inflation (impossible because no one really wants to be responsible in Washington)...which one do you think is more likely to be done? the answer is neither so we really are pretty fucked.
No minimum wage and raising the minimum wage are a way to combat the same problem, Cost of living) some just don't want to see it that way. If you are against a minimum wage it must be because you hate the poor, and if you are for raising the minimum wage it must be because you are a bleeding heart socialist hell bent on ruining America.
Why does the money have to be forced into the system devaluing the dollar? Why can't it be diverted from existing pools by restructuring current spending practices as well as tax laws that benefit the uber rich?
It can, but who is going to give up their sacred cow to make it happen? what happens when the tax benefits that the uber rich are receiving go away? nothing in economics happens in a vacuum unfortunately.
Maybe I don't understand your question. Are you talking about welfare dollars? If you are talking about welfare dollars I would agree that if you are going to be spending more on it, it should come at the expense of another gov't program. We shouldn't spend more than we take in. I realize budgeting is guessing and tax revenues are impossible to gauge exactly so some leeway is fine, but a trillion dollars? that should never occur. But that is a philosophy difference that people have.
Are you talking about raising the minimum wage? Because that is forcing money into the consumer cycle. The money must come from somewhere. Costs are always be passed on to the consumer, of which people at the bottom spend way more than people at the top in terms of percentage of their income. I don't think you mean that gov't should subsidize the minimum wage are you? In the end they do through what is known as corporate welfare, but that is another conversation all together.
When money in circulation goes up, that increases the supply. When that happens demand goes up and then as demand for products goes up supply of those products goes down. Raising the value and price of those products to the sellers.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How ever you slice it, unless wealth is redistributed, we will endlessly engage this kind of conversation. It goes right back to the 1% vs 99%. And the gap continues to grow.
the gap grows when everyone is better off too Brian. If the poor get a 20% increase in average income, and the rich get the same, the income gap grows but everyone is "better off"
Economics is a fucker
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How ever you slice it, unless wealth is redistributed, we will endlessly engage this kind of conversation. It goes right back to the 1% vs 99%. And the gap continues to grow.
the gap grows when everyone is better off too Brian. If the poor get a 20% increase in average income, and the rich get the same, the income gap grows but everyone is "better off"
Economics is a fucker
Wait... where did you hear that?
there's never been any evidence that if we give the workers a raise that the CEO Salaries go from $10 million to $12 Million.
OK so... I live in a very nice Spanish Colonial house in the neighborhood of Silverlake in Los Angeles.
It's a medium-sized 2-bedroom house with a two-car garage and a nice enclosed front yard. while my husband and I have no kids, many of the other houses on our street house families with one kid and occasionally two. This house was built in the 40s after the war and it was meant for a starter family. A stay at home mom, a single working father and a kid or two. Like the Cleavers.
Back in the 50s it was totally possible and quite common for a single working father to be able to support a family and buy a house and a car and even a SECOND car for his wife (it's the ideal that helped build the Valley).
Now.. that's seldom possible unless the father makes a killing. Now both parents must work good jobs and the money is still pretty tight. My husband and I make WAY above minimum wage (he's an architect) and we have no kids. But we're still living at the level we can afford to live at. Which means, of course, that since the 50s, inflation has WAY surpassed the amount the American workers make.
In the same time, company CEO pay has gone from maybe two or three times what the employees made to as much as 300 times what employees make. Yes, it's quite common for CEOs to make in a single day what their employees make in a whole year.
That's unsustainable. As we fight to remove any protections from workers, any social safetynet, any possibility to advance... the richest 1% of the population have a whopping 90% of the money. And the bottom 40% have less than 10% between them.
Saying that giving those people a raise is going to result in the CEOs also making more... makes no sense. We did it before. We can do it again.
Look at the value that the dollar held back then. It has simply lost buying power, that's why both parents need to work. That isn't even touching the huge rise in taxes, the hidden food inflation like somebody else said, the price of fuel, etc.
Things are more expensive for a reason, that reason is the dollar has less power so you need more to buy a product. We gave control over our money to the Federal Reserve in 1913 and its never had a full audit.
Pretty poor economic policy for us working people if you ask me. The rich get richer and we sit here and argue about raising minimum wage instead of focusing on the why.
How ever you slice it, unless wealth is redistributed, we will endlessly engage this kind of conversation. It goes right back to the 1% vs 99%. And the gap continues to grow.
the gap grows when everyone is better off too Brian. If the poor get a 20% increase in average income, and the rich get the same, the income gap grows but everyone is "better off"
Economics is a fucker
Wait... where did you hear that?
there's never been any evidence that if we give the workers a raise that the CEO Salaries go from $10 million to $12 Million.
That makes no sense at all.
that isn't what I said
I made reference to Brian talking about the wealth/income gap. He said the gap was getting wider, I made the point that the gap gets wider in good times as well.
And who do you think will benefit when Johnny makes $14 rather than $9? The same exact people who benefit from him making 9...and I don't think it will be Johnny for very long...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Call me a buffoon... but what are you trying to say here, mike?
He's highlighting the typical, predictable reaction (of some) here and elsewhere that if you aren't completely on board with every aspect of gov't-directed "charity", then you must be a heartless bastard who eats live puppies.
is there any other way to eat them?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And who do you think will benefit when Johnny makes $14 rather than $9? The same exact people who benefit from him making 9...and I don't think it will be Johnny for very long...
I work in Manufacturing, making hardly a living wage, but with my hard work and OT i do ok. My company hires many temps during the busy season, with their agency paying that worker minimum wage. Now here IMHO is the problem of minimum wage.
The people that are brought in do mediocre work, that is physically exhausting, but can be done by anyone with 2 legs and hands. If I complain to them about their crappy job stacking the pallet, they will shrug, say "8 bucks and hour," and move on to the next one. I could complain to my boss, and that person would be replaced by yet another person who has been waiting for that job, and would be no better at doing the job.
If the minimum wage is raised to ten dollars and hour, that same person will do that same crappy pallet job, shrug and say "ten bucks an hour," and move on to the next one.
Chris Rock would say: “I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law.”
My point is that no matter what the minimum wage is, until companies are willing to pay a living wage, they will get what they pay for. If the government forces the companies to pay a living wage to the worker, the worker will give the same output. If the company takes it upon themselves to pay a living wage, they will get happy workers. And a Happy worker is a Productive worker. One such example of this is Costco, who pays their employees a living wage, yet still remains incredibly profitable.
And for those that say, well your point is moot, because you were talking about temporary workers, of course they don't care etc etc, I will point to an my former job, which had seasonal temps as well and paid them 10 an hour. The temps did the same type of palatizing but with much more fervor and pride. Obviously it is impossible for me to prove both of these job observations to you all here but it's the best I can do.
So, what to do? Increase the minimum wage and get the same results? I would raise it a little bit; to me minimum wage should go up with inflation - But I think that the problem with the haves vs the have nots has more to do with less and less profit sharing rather than the necessity of government interference in wages.
Now before all the libertarians applaud this half hour I have spent typing this out I will add that there should be some kind of government pressure towards this living wage. I just dont think the min wage hike to the living wage will get us there.
8/29/00*5/2/03*7/2/03*7/3/03*7/11/03*9/28/04*5/24/06*6/28/08*5/15/10*5/17/10* 10/16/13*10/25/13* 4/28/16*4/28/16*8/5/16*8/7/16 EV 6/15/11 Brad 10/27/02
Look at the value that the dollar held back then. It has simply lost buying power, that's why both parents need to work. That isn't even touching the huge rise in taxes, the hidden food inflation like somebody else said, the price of fuel, etc.
Things are more expensive for a reason, that reason is the dollar has less power so you need more to buy a product. We gave control over our money to the Federal Reserve in 1913 and its never had a full audit.
Pretty poor economic policy for us working people if you ask me. The rich get richer and we sit here and argue about raising minimum wage instead of focusing on the why.
Excellent point, and probably single largest reason why our economy is where its at today. The fed has to go.
I hope to chime in a bit more later, but regarding getting what you pay for...
Not necessarily so.
What I get paid or not has no effect on the quality of my work - never has.
When my dad would take me as a 12/13-year-old to help out in his office, I always did my best.
My first job as a temp in retail making fairly crappy money, still did my best (and lo and behold, got myself promoted within a fairly short time to become their youngest-ever manager). And my GOD did I come to hate retail.
Maybe I'm naive or idealistic in this sense, but what the fuck has happened to basic work ethics? It's akin to being an asshole when no one's looking but altruistic when in the spotlight.
Don't people answer to themselves / their conscience first?
Anyone who'll do a shitty, apathetic job and think it's OK - at any wage - isn't worth it.
I hope to chime in a bit more later, but regarding getting what you pay for...
Not necessarily so.
What I get paid or not has no effect on the quality of my work - never has.
When my dad would take me as a 12/13-year-old to help out in his office, I always did my best.
My first job as a temp in retail making fairly crappy money, still did my best (and lo and behold, got myself promoted within a fairly short time to become their youngest-ever manager). And my GOD did I come to hate retail.
Maybe I'm naive or idealistic in this sense, but what the fuck has happened to basic work ethics? It's akin to being an asshole when no one's looking but altruistic when in the spotlight.
Don't people answer to themselves / their conscience first?
Anyone who'll do a shitty, apathetic job and think it's OK - at any wage - isn't worth it.
I think that if your honest with yourself, you can answer that question....most people dont.
Horrible generalization, i know.
I hope to chime in a bit more later, but regarding getting what you pay for...
Not necessarily so.
What I get paid or not has no effect on the quality of my work - never has.
I can just about guarantee that if you got a significant pay cut, your work performance would slip.
I will also say that working with your dad alone is enough to ensure good quality work - and also If there is potential for a promotion, there is a reason to work hard.
I
n order to grasp what I saying, you must understand that no matter how hard they work they will never be promoted. Maybe, if they are lucky, a permanent position will open up, but since they have no training in operation of machinery, they will be passed up in favor of someone from the street with a resume. And thus the vicious cycle continues.
I'm not saying they shouldn't work hard based on low pay - trust me I wish they would - I am just saying that it is hard to ignore the probability of its existence.
8/29/00*5/2/03*7/2/03*7/3/03*7/11/03*9/28/04*5/24/06*6/28/08*5/15/10*5/17/10* 10/16/13*10/25/13* 4/28/16*4/28/16*8/5/16*8/7/16 EV 6/15/11 Brad 10/27/02
I think the point that Unsung is trying to make is that a minimum wage increase will be null and void after the price adjustment that follows from more dollars being forced into the system.
the dollars come from businesses, either they eat the costs or adjust their prices. There is more money in flow because people will most likely spend it. more money to be had, more demand on products, prices go up. hidden inflation in food is much more likely to happen in this scenario. A company puts 14ozs of cereal in a box instead of 16. The reason they do this is the cost of corn goes up (demand) and the cost of employee wages goes up (legislation).
It is a vicious circle unfortunately. The more you raise the minimum wage, the more things will cost those on minimum wage. Unless you perpetually raise it (impossible to maintain), or do your best to control inflation (impossible because no one really wants to be responsible in Washington)...which one do you think is more likely to be done? the answer is neither so we really are pretty fucked.
No minimum wage and raising the minimum wage are a way to combat the same problem, Cost of living) some just don't want to see it that way. If you are against a minimum wage it must be because you hate the poor, and if you are for raising the minimum wage it must be because you are a bleeding heart socialist hell bent on ruining America.
Why does the money have to be forced into the system devaluing the dollar? Why can't it be diverted from existing pools by restructuring current spending practices as well as tax laws that benefit the uber rich?
It can, but who is going to give up their sacred cow to make it happen? what happens when the tax benefits that the uber rich are receiving go away? nothing in economics happens in a vacuum unfortunately.
Maybe I don't understand your question. Are you talking about welfare dollars? If you are talking about welfare dollars I would agree that if you are going to be spending more on it, it should come at the expense of another gov't program. We shouldn't spend more than we take in. I realize budgeting is guessing and tax revenues are impossible to gauge exactly so some leeway is fine, but a trillion dollars? that should never occur. But that is a philosophy difference that people have.
Are you talking about raising the minimum wage? Because that is forcing money into the consumer cycle. The money must come from somewhere. Costs are always be passed on to the consumer, of which people at the bottom spend way more than people at the top in terms of percentage of their income. I don't think you mean that gov't should subsidize the minimum wage are you? In the end they do through what is known as corporate welfare, but that is another conversation all together.
When money in circulation goes up, that increases the supply. When that happens demand goes up and then as demand for products goes up supply of those products goes down. Raising the value and price of those products to the sellers.
The thread became a little convoluted. I was talking about welfare dollars and methodology to maintain welfare programs by being more fiscally responsible in other areas of government.
For the record, I am in favour of maintaining reasonable minimum wages and the responsibility for paying these wages lies directly with the employer- I am not suggesting the government subsidize wages in any way.
While I agree that costs are generally passed to the consumer... I would also suggest that choice is left to the consumer. A company might seek to recoup the money spent on minimum wages by inflating the cost of their product, but if alternative and similar products are offered cheaper... or if the consumer decides the product isn't worth the value... the company must make itself more attractive to the consumer.
Industry left unchecked will not have the positive effects some ideologists such as Friedman would suggest. This has been proven repeatedly and a move to remove minimum wages (and union busting, etc.) would be a devastating blow to the middle class and society.
Comments
Why are you torn? Why would you be opposed to a minimum wage?
edit: Alternatively, I guess you could make an argument FOR the existence of a minimum wage while also arguing that it should not necessarily be a living wage. You could say that it's a check against uncounterable power in the form of companies/corps, but that raising it to or above living wage could, on the whole, demotivate folks from working their way up to realize some semblance of the "American Dream". I dunno just thinking out loud here.
most people have to pay rent/house payment when they're an adult. hell, some pay their parents a little something to help the family out, they are kids working a bullshit job after school
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I mean, if you're going to have one, it should at least be linked to (actual) inflation.
Whether you should have one in the first place is another story. I'm torn.[/quote]
Why are you torn? Why would you be opposed to a minimum wage?[/quote]
That's effectively what this thread is all about, isn't it? If you follow their argument to its logical conclusion, most folks that are against an increase in the minimum wage are really arguing that there shouldn't be a mandated minimum wage at all.[/quote]
i agree...there should be no minimum wage.
got me wrong
I get the gist of the thread.
You are saying most folks and their in your response to me. I was curious to know your perspective and why you said you felt 'torn' as to whether or not there should be a minimum wage or not.
They make to much noise and tend to knock my sauteed mashed potatos off my plate when I bite into a live puppie.
So there are two option. Scrap it out between managing work and family for a few years while gradually improving ... or maintain current conditions.
It can, but who is going to give up their sacred cow to make it happen? what happens when the tax benefits that the uber rich are receiving go away? nothing in economics happens in a vacuum unfortunately.
Maybe I don't understand your question. Are you talking about welfare dollars? If you are talking about welfare dollars I would agree that if you are going to be spending more on it, it should come at the expense of another gov't program. We shouldn't spend more than we take in. I realize budgeting is guessing and tax revenues are impossible to gauge exactly so some leeway is fine, but a trillion dollars? that should never occur. But that is a philosophy difference that people have.
Are you talking about raising the minimum wage? Because that is forcing money into the consumer cycle. The money must come from somewhere. Costs are always be passed on to the consumer, of which people at the bottom spend way more than people at the top in terms of percentage of their income. I don't think you mean that gov't should subsidize the minimum wage are you? In the end they do through what is known as corporate welfare, but that is another conversation all together.
When money in circulation goes up, that increases the supply. When that happens demand goes up and then as demand for products goes up supply of those products goes down. Raising the value and price of those products to the sellers.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the gap grows when everyone is better off too Brian. If the poor get a 20% increase in average income, and the rich get the same, the income gap grows but everyone is "better off"
Economics is a fucker
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wait... where did you hear that?
there's never been any evidence that if we give the workers a raise that the CEO Salaries go from $10 million to $12 Million.
That makes no sense at all.
It's a medium-sized 2-bedroom house with a two-car garage and a nice enclosed front yard. while my husband and I have no kids, many of the other houses on our street house families with one kid and occasionally two. This house was built in the 40s after the war and it was meant for a starter family. A stay at home mom, a single working father and a kid or two. Like the Cleavers.
Back in the 50s it was totally possible and quite common for a single working father to be able to support a family and buy a house and a car and even a SECOND car for his wife (it's the ideal that helped build the Valley).
Now.. that's seldom possible unless the father makes a killing. Now both parents must work good jobs and the money is still pretty tight. My husband and I make WAY above minimum wage (he's an architect) and we have no kids. But we're still living at the level we can afford to live at. Which means, of course, that since the 50s, inflation has WAY surpassed the amount the American workers make.
In the same time, company CEO pay has gone from maybe two or three times what the employees made to as much as 300 times what employees make. Yes, it's quite common for CEOs to make in a single day what their employees make in a whole year.
That's unsustainable. As we fight to remove any protections from workers, any social safetynet, any possibility to advance... the richest 1% of the population have a whopping 90% of the money. And the bottom 40% have less than 10% between them.
Saying that giving those people a raise is going to result in the CEOs also making more... makes no sense. We did it before. We can do it again.
Things are more expensive for a reason, that reason is the dollar has less power so you need more to buy a product. We gave control over our money to the Federal Reserve in 1913 and its never had a full audit.
Pretty poor economic policy for us working people if you ask me. The rich get richer and we sit here and argue about raising minimum wage instead of focusing on the why.
that isn't what I said
I made reference to Brian talking about the wealth/income gap. He said the gap was getting wider, I made the point that the gap gets wider in good times as well.
And who do you think will benefit when Johnny makes $14 rather than $9? The same exact people who benefit from him making 9...and I don't think it will be Johnny for very long...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
is there any other way to eat them?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I work in Manufacturing, making hardly a living wage, but with my hard work and OT i do ok. My company hires many temps during the busy season, with their agency paying that worker minimum wage. Now here IMHO is the problem of minimum wage.
The people that are brought in do mediocre work, that is physically exhausting, but can be done by anyone with 2 legs and hands. If I complain to them about their crappy job stacking the pallet, they will shrug, say "8 bucks and hour," and move on to the next one. I could complain to my boss, and that person would be replaced by yet another person who has been waiting for that job, and would be no better at doing the job.
If the minimum wage is raised to ten dollars and hour, that same person will do that same crappy pallet job, shrug and say "ten bucks an hour," and move on to the next one.
Chris Rock would say: “I used to work at McDonald's making minimum wage. You know what that means when someone pays you minimum wage? You know what your boss was trying to say? "Hey if I could pay you less, I would, but it's against the law.”
My point is that no matter what the minimum wage is, until companies are willing to pay a living wage, they will get what they pay for. If the government forces the companies to pay a living wage to the worker, the worker will give the same output. If the company takes it upon themselves to pay a living wage, they will get happy workers. And a Happy worker is a Productive worker. One such example of this is Costco, who pays their employees a living wage, yet still remains incredibly profitable.
And for those that say, well your point is moot, because you were talking about temporary workers, of course they don't care etc etc, I will point to an my former job, which had seasonal temps as well and paid them 10 an hour. The temps did the same type of palatizing but with much more fervor and pride. Obviously it is impossible for me to prove both of these job observations to you all here but it's the best I can do.
So, what to do? Increase the minimum wage and get the same results? I would raise it a little bit; to me minimum wage should go up with inflation - But I think that the problem with the haves vs the have nots has more to do with less and less profit sharing rather than the necessity of government interference in wages.
Now before all the libertarians applaud this half hour I have spent typing this out I will add that there should be some kind of government pressure towards this living wage. I just dont think the min wage hike to the living wage will get us there.
Not necessarily so.
What I get paid or not has no effect on the quality of my work - never has.
When my dad would take me as a 12/13-year-old to help out in his office, I always did my best.
My first job as a temp in retail making fairly crappy money, still did my best (and lo and behold, got myself promoted within a fairly short time to become their youngest-ever manager). And my GOD did I come to hate retail.
Maybe I'm naive or idealistic in this sense, but what the fuck has happened to basic work ethics? It's akin to being an asshole when no one's looking but altruistic when in the spotlight.
Don't people answer to themselves / their conscience first?
Anyone who'll do a shitty, apathetic job and think it's OK - at any wage - isn't worth it.
Horrible generalization, i know.
I can just about guarantee that if you got a significant pay cut, your work performance would slip.
I will also say that working with your dad alone is enough to ensure good quality work - and also If there is potential for a promotion, there is a reason to work hard.
I
n order to grasp what I saying, you must understand that no matter how hard they work they will never be promoted. Maybe, if they are lucky, a permanent position will open up, but since they have no training in operation of machinery, they will be passed up in favor of someone from the street with a resume. And thus the vicious cycle continues.
I'm not saying they shouldn't work hard based on low pay - trust me I wish they would - I am just saying that it is hard to ignore the probability of its existence.
The thread became a little convoluted. I was talking about welfare dollars and methodology to maintain welfare programs by being more fiscally responsible in other areas of government.
For the record, I am in favour of maintaining reasonable minimum wages and the responsibility for paying these wages lies directly with the employer- I am not suggesting the government subsidize wages in any way.
While I agree that costs are generally passed to the consumer... I would also suggest that choice is left to the consumer. A company might seek to recoup the money spent on minimum wages by inflating the cost of their product, but if alternative and similar products are offered cheaper... or if the consumer decides the product isn't worth the value... the company must make itself more attractive to the consumer.
Industry left unchecked will not have the positive effects some ideologists such as Friedman would suggest. This has been proven repeatedly and a move to remove minimum wages (and union busting, etc.) would be a devastating blow to the middle class and society.