Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I refused everything you said you just refuse to accept that.
Nope, you got caught making stupid claims and every since have done nothing but try desperately to change the subject and go full straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
Look at the last thing I wrote on my last post that same website says in 2016 45 million families will be in poverty which means all a lot if not all of them will be min wage workers.
And again (this must be 20th time) you've brought up a fact that neither supports your initial claim or disproves mine. I can't believe anyone's logic skills are this poor so I can only conclude you're doing it on purpose as further attempts at obfuscation.
Let's break down your latest fail shall we?
Does 45 million families being in poverty prove Storm Eagle's claim that min wage workers must take those jobs or they will be homeless? NO.
Does 45 million families being in poverty disprove LieQiang's claim that most min wage workers aren't in households below the poverty line? NO.
So you're still spinning your wheels coming up with facts that don't help you in this thread. Let the hilarious Storm Eagle fail parade continue, I'll make more popcorn.
I read where a city out west (Portland?) passed a $15 minimum wage law and a McDonald's introduced a self service kiosk! The new law actually does reduce jobs.
I read where a city out west (Portland?) passed a $15 minimum wage law and a McDonald's introduced a self service kiosk! The new law actually does reduce jobs.
Nope, you got caught making stupid claims and every since have done nothing but try desperately to change the subject and go full straw man.
And again (this must be 20th time) you've brought up a fact that neither supports your initial claim or disproves mine. I can't believe anyone's logic skills are this poor so I can only conclude you're doing it on purpose as further attempts at obfuscation.
Let's break down your latest fail shall we?
Does 45 million families being in poverty prove Storm Eagle's claim that min wage workers must take those jobs or they will be homeless? NO.
Does 45 million families being in poverty disprove LieQiang's claim that most min wage workers aren't in households below the poverty line? NO.
So you're still spinning your wheels coming up with facts that don't help you in this thread. Let the hilarious Storm Eagle fail parade continue, I'll make more popcorn.
Well if you are poverty and you do not take those jobs you are not gonna have enough to pay for rent and you may by homeless if you do not have family to lean on maybe it will not happen at once but it will happen or do you think that no homeless people had low wage jobs? All you have to do is connect the dots but logic does not seem to be your strong suit.
It's about you because you are the one claiming that there is no market value.
Market value doesn't mean that there is a list with all jobs and their pay rate. Market value is very dynamic, and can be different for different people, different locations, and a multitude of other reasons.
I presented an example of market value to you earlier, but it apparently went over your head, so here it is again:
Market value for no-skill labor in my market is approx. $11/hour, even though the Federal MW is $7.25/hour. That means that a no-skill worker can go out today, in my market area, and reasonably be expected to be able to get a job paying around $11/hour. Does that mean there is a "list" showing what all jobs pay? Of course not.
Ridiculous. Businesses can't pay "whatever they want." If they could, you would get paid nothing for your job. I assume you are paid more than nothing. You are paid "market value." Are you employed at a higher level than a no-skill burger flipper? If so, you are also getting paid more than minimum wage. Guess what? You are paid "market value." But understand that this doesn't mean that you are paid the same as everyone who has the same job that you do. You need to drop that incredibly naive notion.
How did you get that $11 figure how many low skill labors are payed that? If you are not paid the same as everyone else who has the same job then it is not market value because market value all have to be the same. Do you really think business owners think oh I will pay my employees x amount because it is market value? No they may do it because they care about their employees, they do want employees to leeave and have to retrain new employees, they know more money in the pockets of their employees will create demand all which has nothing to do with a market value.
How did you get that $11 figure how many low skill labors are payed that? If you are not paid the same as everyone else who has the same job then it is not market value because market value all have to be the same. Do you really think business owners think oh I will pay my employees x amount because it is market value? No they may do it because they care about their employees, they do want employees to leeave and have to retrain new employees, they know more money in the pockets of their employees will create demand all which has nothing to do with a market value.
After reading the senseless dribble in this post, it has only reinforced my earlier conclusion that many participating in this thread have virtually no knowlege about how business actually works as it relates to paying wages/benefits/etc. Having built and operated 3 businesses (in different market sectors)I can tell you that you that you are about as wrong as you could possibly be about how all this works. I can also state that know amount of information from someone in the know will ever change your mind.
How did you get that $11 figure how many low skill labors are payed that? If you are not paid the same as everyone else who has the same job then it is not market value because market value all have to be the same. Do you really think business owners think oh I will pay my employees x amount because it is market value? No they may do it because they care about their employees, they do want employees to leeave and have to retrain new employees, they know more money in the pockets of their employees will create demand all which has nothing to do with a market value.
For a while, I thought that you might be acting deliberately obtuse in this discussion. However, it has become quite clear that you just don't understand these issues on a level that will allow you to engage in a meaningful discussion.
I read where a city out west (Portland?) passed a $15 minimum wage law and a McDonald's introduced a self service kiosk! The new law actually does reduce jobs.
How many elevator operators do you know? How many telephone operators? How many milk-men? Are we that much worse off because technology made those jobs go away?
I don't know why people shed tears for jobs that never paid much and had no career opportunity in the first place.
After reading the senseless dribble in this post, it has only reinforced my earlier conclusion that many participating in this thread have virtually no knowlege about how business actually works as it relates to paying wages/benefits/etc. Having built and operated 3 businesses (in different market sectors)I can tell you that you that you are about as wrong as you could possibly be about how all this works. I can also state that know amount of information from someone in the know will ever change your mind.
I'll see if I can express the criticism more clearly.
I know business owners that most definitely CAN pay more to their workers. They just don't want to.
Case in point, where I work, the operating budget is around $100 million. The salaries of the staff add up to far, far less than that. Around 8 or 9 million I think. We've gotten inadequate raises for several years. We demonstrated that to catch us all up to a "competitive rate" as we define it (what similar staff gets paid in the region), would cost about $1 million. They may finally be wising up since I see new recruitment starting with much higher salaries; we've had a problem not attracting good talent or losing them when they get other offers.
Then there is the bigger question of whether "market rate" is a "fair" rate. When I worked for Wal-Mart, how they decided pay rates was pretty simple... a formula based on competitors pay raises in a particular radius from the store. They had more than enough money to pay more than what they were if they wanted, but policy was to pay about 10% less than their competitors. They got poor customer service from workers as a result, but they did not care about that. There were fairly high levels of customer complaint they were prepared to accept.
So while the "market" rate can be easily determined, the actual value of that work and the workers that do it may be badly skewed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
