Minimum Wage

surferdude

farfromglorified wrote:

Wouldn't the problem also be remedied by employees demanding fair pay from the employers and withholding their labor until they get it? Are they also not "willing to do it themselves"?

The problem could also be solved by people demanding to pay higher taxes so that a guaranteed income from the government could be paid to all citizens monthly.

farfromglorified

surferdude wrote:

The problem could also be solved by people demanding to pay higher taxes so that a guaranteed income from the government could be paid to all citizens monthly.

We already have that. It's called Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc. Except they mostly demand that other people pay those taxes.

jeffbr

farfromglorified wrote:

We already have that. It's called Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc. Except they mostly demand that other people pay those taxes.

True.

I'd like to see a system whereby anyone who wants others to be paid more can start a business, create jobs and hire them.

qtegirl

onelongsong wrote:

i forgot to look where you're from but i own a manufacturing company north of chicago. i've got 2 guys that program the machines and 20 mexicans working for minumum wage running them. 1 man runs at least 2 machines except the bar feed machines in which case he runs 3. i spent 22 years in the manufacturing business making everything from printer rollers to aircraft parts. the other manufacturers i worked with (farming out work to them) did the same.

I'm in houston and my experience has been different. I work in a plant an no one here makes minimum wage. A lot of the operators even make more than the engineers by working overtime.

farfromglorified

jeffbr wrote:

True.

I'd like to see a system whereby anyone who wants others to be paid more can start a business, create jobs and hire them.

Why? It's a hell of a lot easier to just wait for someone else to do that and then hold a gun to their head.

onelongsong

farfromglorified wrote:

Wouldn't the problem also be remedied by employees demanding fair pay from the employers and withholding their labor until they get it? Are they also not "willing to do it themselves"?

there's a hundred other people willing to take that job for the money offered. if you don't work you get fired; plus you don't get unemployment. withholding labor is cutting your own throat.

onelongsong

qtegirl wrote:

I'm in houston and my experience has been different. I work in a plant an no one here makes minimum wage. A lot of the operators even make more than the engineers by working overtime.

thanks for the insite. the chicago market must be different.

farfromglorified

onelongsong wrote:

there's a hundred other people willing to take that job for the money offered.

Then that should tell you something about the actual value of that job.

if you don't work you get fired;

Then that should tell you something about the value of your skills.

plus you don't get unemployment.

What an outrage!!!!! You mean you don't get paid by other people for providing zero value to them?

withholding labor is cutting your own throat.

Is that not the highest ideal of "public welfare" and "altruism"??? Sacrificing yourself for others?

jeffbr

onelongsong wrote:

there's a hundred other people willing to take that job for the money offered. if you don't work you get fired; plus you don't get unemployment. withholding labor is cutting your own throat.

So if there are a hundred other people willing to take a job you think is undervalued, is that job actually undervalued?

desandrews

Noone has ever commented on the urban/rural question. Certainly you think the minimum wage in Chicago would be different than somewhere in the middle of Kansas, correct? So, who is this proposed minimum wage appropriate for? The city slickers or the country bumpkins? So even after the change, either the country folks are being overpaid or the city folks are underpaid. Shouldn't that be addressed?

qtegirl

jeffbr wrote:

So if there are a hundred other people willing to take a job you think is undervalued, is that job actually undervalued?

I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.

My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.

Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.

surferdude

qtegirl wrote:

I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.

My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.

Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.

So is Nicaragua better if your Aunt only hires one maid and pays her more and let's the other live off the highly touted Nicaraguan welfare system?

Of course, you are always free to send these two maids some of your own money. Now that would show you care about them as people.

farfromglorified

qtegirl wrote:

I don't think so, it just means that there are a lot of desperate people.

My aunt lives in Nicaragua. She doesn't have a lot of money, she's not "wealthy", but she does OK. She has 2 maids. How can she afford it? Well, they are willing to do the work for very little money because otherwise they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family.

Nicaragua doesn't have a minimum wage. That's how people like my aunt can get away with it.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Your aunt is doing something wrong by paying these two people the money, without which they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family??????

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you suggesting these people should starve?

onelongsong

desandrews wrote:

Noone has ever commented on the urban/rural question. Certainly you think the minimum wage in Chicago would be different than somewhere in the middle of Kansas, correct? So, who is this proposed minimum wage appropriate for? The city slickers or the country bumpkins? So even after the change, either the country folks are being overpaid or the city folks are underpaid. Shouldn't that be addressed?

in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?

farfromglorified

onelongsong wrote:

in a land where all men are created equal; how do you justify different minimum wages?

Hehe....

Men aren't paid for being created, men are paid for creating. I would think, as such a prolific businessperson, you would know that.

mammasan

I believe that there should be a raise in minimum wage, but it should be on a state by state basis. The cost of living is not the same in every state. The cost of living in Kansas is far lower than in New Jersey. Keep the federal government out of it and let each state decide based upon the average cost of living in that state.

know1

I am against the concept of a minimum wage. Not only do I think it shouldn't be raised, I think it should be eliminated.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Then that should tell you something about the actual value of that job.

On its own, the free market isn't capable of determining the value of someone's labor. Instead it creates a race to the top for the rich and a race to the bottom for the poor. Essentially, a fiefdom.

farfromglorified wrote:

Then that should tell you something about the value of your skills.

You're perfectly free use wages to instill a competitive nature to your hiring practices - provided a bare minimum is met.

farfromglorified wrote:

What an outrage!!!!! You mean you don't get paid by other people for providing zero value to them?

Humans aren't a "value." They're human. A person shouldn't have to start over everytime he or she loses a job. There's an interest in keeping as many people from falling below the standards of livable existence as possible. Unchecked capitalism cannot survive the strife it causes among people who cannot, for whatever reason, participate outside of a serf-like position. The longer it goes unchecked, the more people who fall into that position. Once it reaches a breaking point, those guns you're always talking about will literally be pointed at you - and they won't be pointed by anyone offering an avenue of appeal.

farfromglorified wrote:

Is that not the highest ideal of "public welfare" and "altruism"??? Sacrificing yourself for others?

The highest ideal of public welfare is to provide welfare to those who come up short. Altruism isn't the issue here - realistic solutions for a functioning society are.

RainDog

mammasan wrote:

I believe that there should be a raise in minimum wage, but it should be on a state by state basis. The cost of living is not the same in every state. The cost of living in Kansas is far lower than in New Jersey. Keep the federal government out of it and let each state decide based upon the average cost of living in that state.

The federal government sets a bare minimum when it comes to minimum wage. States have every right to establish their own, provided it doesn't fall below the federal. Many States already do - and they do use their own cost of living as a measure.

qtegirl

farfromglorified wrote:

Let me ask you a very simple question. Your aunt is doing something wrong by paying these two people the money, without which they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their family??????

Perhaps I'm confused, but are you suggesting these people should starve?

Of course I'm not suggesting that people should starve and I'm a little bit offended at that insinuation.

I'm illustrating a point. When there is not minimum wage, employers will pay as little as they can to keep their employees. In the US, if there are people willing to do a job for minimum wage, that's how much they'll get paid. If there is a labor shortage, employers will pay more until the attrack enough people to get the job done. We saw this happen in New Orleans, where shopkeepers and restaurant owners couldn't attrack or keep enough employees because the reconstruction/clean up companies were paying so much more. This in effect raised the "minimum wage" there.

When you have skilled labor, you pay them more because experience and knowledge of the job is important. If an employer is about to lose their best employee because the pay is too low, they will pay them just enough to keep them, as long as it's in the interest and helps the bottom line of the company.

My aunt is not doing anything wrong. She's operating within the framework that's afforded to her.