Minimum Wage

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

Commy wrote:

which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

if the employer absorbs the cost, the number of employers will drop, since the return on their investments will lessen.

Fewer employers will lessen competition in the market, and thus, prices will rise, and those who benefit from the new minimum wage will now have less buying-power then they did before the increase.

Three years ago, some grocery checkers went on strike in Los Angeles. Many of them earn more then $20/hr. In order to afford to pay them the high wage, stores must charge more for food, so low-wage people suffer.

Some may benefit from an increase in minimum wages & union pay rates, but in the long run, the ow wage earners as a whole always suffer the most.

Economics do not allow for employers to absorb the minimum wage increase without a detrimental effect on the minimum wage worker.

onelongsong · November 2006

Commy wrote:

which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

i can then set up shop off shore. employers are business owners because they're a little smarter. you'll never hurt the business owner. we close the doors and open somewhere else. i don't mean to be arrogant but every swing at the corporate world slaps the blue collar world in the face. fine me and i cut jobs; then spread the work to the remaining workers. if they don't want to do it; there's a hungry person behind them willing to do it.

onelongsong · November 2006

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

if the employer absorbs the cost, the number of employers will drop, since the return on their investments will lessen.

Fewer employers will lessen competition in the market, and thus, prices will rise, and those who benefit from the new minimum wage will now have less buying-power then they did before the increase.

Three years ago, some grocery checkers went on strike in Los Angeles. Many of them earn more then $20/hr. In order to afford to pay them the high wage, stores must charge more for food, so low-wage people suffer.

Some may benefit from an increase in minimum wages & union pay rates, but in the long run, the ow wage earners as a whole always suffer the most.

Economics do not allow for employers to absorb the minimum wage increase without a detrimental effect on the minimum wage worker.

the cashiers now bag groceries. the baggers jobs are obsolete because of minimum wage. cut the jobs; spread the work.

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

Commy wrote:

which is why safeguards need to be implemented by the government to ensure the employer takes the cost, not the consumer or the employees. In the case of small businesses they can offer tax breaks and incentives to make sure they don't feel the hike.

and how will the govt absorb the lost tax revenue caused by the tax breaks?.....they will have to cut other services, or increase taxes. hence, the min. wage earner will pay a higher tax rate.

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

the cashiers now bag groceries. the baggers jobs are obsolete because of minimum wage. cut the jobs; spread the work.

so the bagger should lose his job so that the unskilled union member can earn an inflated wage?

why not fire the cashier and train the non-union bagger who will work for less?

onelongsong · November 2006

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

and how will the govt absorb the lost tax revenue caused by the tax breaks?.....they will have to cut other services, or increase taxes. hence, the min. wage earner will pay a higher tax rate.

you're right. tax the business and the business will either outsource or spread the workload throughout the other employees.

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

you're right. tax the business and the business will either outsource or spread the workload throughout the other employees.

people always love to hate "the employer", but they need to realize that the employer is the one who took the risk to set up shop, and that the employee gets his wages, even of the company is losing money. I won't list all of the risks to which an employer is subject, but the risk of a lawsuit due to the acts of an employee can cost millions!

onelongsong · November 2006

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

people always love to hate "the employer", but they need to realize that the employer is the one who took the risk to set up shop, and that the employee gets his wages, even of the company is losing money. I won't list all of the risks to which an employer is subject, but the risk of a lawsuit due to the acts of an employee can cost millions!

true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.

I am a very liberal person, and i think unions were necessary to protect workers rights and ensure safe work places for coalminers a long time ago, but it bugs me when a union tries to strong-arm in order to get highly above-market wages.

Though they are not as extreme, a union can be compared to a street gang that uses threats and their large number of members in order to have things go their way.

Hope&Anger · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

true. and remember the cashier took the baggers wages so the cashier must also take the baggers responsabilities; ie: bagging the groceries.
also notice how the union albertsons are being replaced by the non-union kohls. both owned by kroger. funny how that works.

My grocery store employs baggers, and all of its employees are unionized. Because they're well-paid, they're happy, friendly; they go out of their way to help. Their supervisors and managers treat them with respect and decency. There's a career path, and over the past 7 years, I have seen people move from being baggers to cashiers to working the office. And I know they send people on to the central office.

I pay a bit more than the local Wal-Mart or other non-union shops, but it's worth it to me.

And my local grocery store is expanding -- opening a brand new location a mile or so away from the Wal-Mart.

So are they stupid? Doomed? Or just decent human beings living by the golden rule?

onelongsong · November 2006

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I am a very liberal person, and i think unions were necessary to protect workers rights and ensure safe work places for coalminers a long time ago, but it bugs me when a union tries to strong-arm in order to get highly above-market wages.

Though they are not as extreme, a union can be compared to a street gang that uses threats and their large number of members in order to have things go their way.

i see your point. the unions hurt the employers at first; but the employers got smart. in 1972 i had 101 employees not including myself. i paid fair wages and paid healthcare. gave 1 hour lunches and 2 15 minute breaks. the union came in and tried the strongarm tactics so i laid off 80 people; made the rest pay their own insurance; gave 1/2 hour lunch and 2- 10 minute breaks (law) and spread the workload out among the 20 remaining people. when i needed more help i used temps or farmed work out. other times i used family. there's always a way.

onelongsong · November 2006

Hope&Anger wrote:

My grocery store employs baggers, and all of its employees are unionized. Because they're well-paid, they're happy, friendly; they go out of their way to help. Their supervisors and managers treat them with respect and decency. There's a career path, and over the past 7 years, I have seen people move from being baggers to cashiers to working the office. And I know they send people on to the central office.

I pay a bit more than the local Wal-Mart or other non-union shops, but it's worth it to me.

And my local grocery store is expanding -- opening a brand new location a mile or so away from the Wal-Mart.

So are they stupid? Doomed? Or just decent human beings living by the golden rule?

history says they're doomed. you may pay a little more now but what about next year when everything else goes up and you need to "tighten your belt" a little more?

kenny olav · November 2006

Having a minimum wage really is a band aid on a larger problem, which is the very existance of dehumanizing labor. There should not be rendering plants, or assembly lines, or fast food restaurants, and any other job that truly makes a person nothing but an appendage of industry. Paying these people to do services that no person would rationally accept if they had a choice, dehumanizing them in this manner, and then paying them subsistance wages (if that) to compensate them is nothing less than total Evil. I don't use the word Evil lightly (note the capitalization).

Now, I admit, I commit these acts of Evil on a daily basis. Several of them. That's because I love myself more that I hate being Evil. I commit less Evil than the average American, but that's no excuse. We all need to force ourselves to stop being Evil fucking a$$holes. We need to create communities based on the fair treatment of each individual within it. We need to take a little bit of time each day to perform whatever less-than-desirable duties are necessary and clean up our own shit, rather than having a bunch of peons work 60 hours a week to do them for us, and then complain when they ask for an extra dollar per hour.

JOEJOEJOE · November 2006

Kenny Olav wrote:

Having a minimum wage really is a band aid on a larger problem, which is the very existance of dehumanizing labor. There should not be rendering plants, or assembly lines, or fast food restaurants, and any other job that truly makes a person nothing but an appendage of industry. Paying these people to do services that no person would rationally accept if they had a choice, dehumanizing them in this manner, and then paying them subsistance wages (if that) to compensate them is nothing less than total Evil. I don't use the word Evil lightly (note the capitalization).

Now, I admit, I commit these acts of Evil on a daily basis. Several of them. That's because I love myself more that I hate being Evil. I commit less Evil than the average American, but that's no excuse. We all need to force ourselves to stop being Evil fucking a$$holes. We need to create communities based on the fair treatment of each individual within it. We need to take a little bit of time each day to perform whatever less-than-desirable duties are necessary and clean up our own shit, rather than having a bunch of peons work 60 hours a week to do them for us, and then complain when they ask for an extra dollar per hour.

but if we all perform the undesirable tasks, what will the unskilled laborer do for work?

will you take a much lower wage so that people don't need to flip burgers?

perhaps some of the people who flip burgers or work in rendering plants are ok with working as they do.

I am all for fair treatment, but I don't see how someone working at mcdonalds is unfair?

onelongsong · November 2006

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

but if we all perform the undesirable tasks, what will the unskilled laborer do for work?

will you take a much lower wage so that people don't need to flip burgers?

perhaps some of the people who flip burgers or work in rendering plants are ok with working as they do.

I am all for fair treatment, but I don't see how someone working at mcdonalds is unfair?

a total economic collapse wouldn't effect me one bit. i live on a ranch and raise my own food; generate my own electricity; and live just fine without any outside interference. my companies would be worthless but with economic collapse; so would money. if he's trying to say people should be self sufficient; i'm all for that. the people grew fat and got lazy; and that's where it all began. some of us pot smoking hippies knew how to feed off the masses and cover our asses at the same time.

Hope&Anger · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

history says they're doomed. you may pay a little more now but what about next year when everything else goes up and you need to "tighten your belt" a little more?

I'll keep paying a little more. I come from a family of coal miners who sacrificed a great deal to unionize mines to make them safe and to squeeze a fair wage out of greedy mine owners. And my parents were in unions early in their careers so they earned good wages and had health insurance and paid vacations. And based on my grandfather's sacrifices and my parents' financial security, I got a good education and make enough money to afford to shop in unionized workplaces.

And unlike the mass of employers in this country, I think it's worth it to spend a little more than I have to in order to make life better for others.

People like you are always saying -- if we allow unions and pay our workers more, then employers will either fire people or pass it along to the consumer. But there are alternatives, aren't there? What about cutting back on executive salaries? American executives make about 450 times what the average employee working in their business make. Is that really necessary to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks? What if they only made, say, 200 times what the average employee made?

And the most amazing thing is that our employers convince American employees that all this is a good idea and that it's inevitable.

onelongsong · November 2006

Hope&Anger wrote:

I'll keep paying a little more. I come from a family of coal miners who sacrificed a great deal to unionize mines to make them safe and to squeeze a fair wage out of greedy mine owners. And my parents were in unions early in their careers so they earned good wages and had health insurance and paid vacations. And based on my grandfather's sacrifices and my parents' financial security, I got a good education and make enough money to afford to shop in unionized workplaces.

And unlike the mass of employers in this country, I think it's worth it to spend a little more than I have to in order to make life better for others.

People like you are always saying -- if we allow unions and pay our workers more, then employers will either fire people or pass it along to the consumer. But there are alternatives, aren't there? What about cutting back on executive salaries? American executives make about 450 times what the average employee working in their business make. Is that really necessary to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks? What if they only made, say, 200 times what the average employee made?

And the most amazing thing is that our employers convince American employees that all this is a good idea and that it's inevitable.

i have no problem making 58.823 times more than i pay my employees. everyone had the same choices. when i was that age i drove a 10 yr old car. they want a new car. i worked 60 hour weeks; they want 40 hour weeks. i had 1 tv; they have 1 in every room. i paid my dues already. if i take a pay cut; will you? will everyone else?

prism · November 2006

Hope&Anger wrote:

My grocery store employs baggers, and all of its employees are unionized. Because they're well-paid, they're happy, friendly; they go out of their way to help. Their supervisors and managers treat them with respect and decency. There's a career path, and over the past 7 years, I have seen people move from being baggers to cashiers to working the office. And I know they send people on to the central office.

I pay a bit more than the local Wal-Mart or other non-union shops, but it's worth it to me.

And my local grocery store is expanding -- opening a brand new location a mile or so away from the Wal-Mart.

So are they stupid? Doomed? Or just decent human beings living by the golden rule?

the grocery store where my daughter checks is the same way. they are unionized, so they get paid medical, dental, vision and prescription. they treat their employees well and they pay above minimum wage even for the baggers. so yes it can be done to run a very sucessful business without treating the employees like dirt.

onelongsong wrote:

history says they're doomed. you may pay a little more now but what about next year when everything else goes up and you need to "tighten your belt" a little more?

the store that i'm talking about is just like the store that Hope&Anger was refering to. they are a local chain and they've been continually expanding over the last 15 years(that i'm aware of it could be much longer than that) all the while giving their employees a decent wage and their customers the best of service.

next year when everything else goes up the prices will go up in every grocery store, not just the unionized ones.

prism · November 2006

onelongsong wrote:

i have no problem making 58.823 times more than i pay my employees. everyone had the same choices. when i was that age i drove a 10 yr old car. they want a new car. i worked 60 hour weeks; they want 40 hour weeks. i had 1 tv; they have 1 in every room. i paid my dues already. if i take a pay cut; will you? will everyone else?

never could understand those that try to defend being greedy

onelongsong · November 2006

prism wrote:

the grocery store where my daughter checks is the same way. they are unionized, so they get paid medical, dental, vision and prescription. they treat their employees well and they pay above minimum wage even for the baggers. so yes it can be done to run a very sucessful business without treating the employees like dirt.

the store that i'm talking about is just like the store that Hope&Anger was refering to. they are a local chain and they've been continually expanding over the last 15 years(that i'm aware of it could be much longer than that) all the while giving their employees a decent wage and their customers the best of service.

next year when everything else goes up the prices will go up in every grocery store, not just the unionized ones.

not always true.
walmart has been able to lower prices on several items due to increased buying power. i offer quantity discounts and if you're a healthy eater; chances are you eat one or more of my products. as each year goes by; i find ways to increase profits and ways to pass savings on to my customers. mostly in larger sales. i'm currently working with schwans to carry my products. this will allow me to almost double my opperation and discount to those large customers who will discount to the consumer. this increases my sales and greatly increases my profits.

Minimum Wage

Comments

Categories