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.
Forget about any of her debt. Do I need to find out what her living expenses are to make sure I pay her enough?
And what do you mean by "within certain parameters?"
I mean given a reasonably non-luxurious life, like not eating out or living without roommates, etc. You can use a cost estimate. The poverty line is an example. It is an estimate of the cost of living. You don't have to check someone's bills to have an estimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG
Or, should I pay her what I believe the job is worth and continue giving her merit increases as she learns more skills?
Well, there are differing ways of determining what a job is actually worth, and they are not necessarily identical. I'd argue that it must be based on actual productivity of goods and services that are necessary for someone, even if that someone is not the employee but rather is a customer of whatever business you are in.
Specialization of labor is something that is done to benefit people. Given that it is possible for people to live off the land in hunter-gatherer/agrarian society, they should also be able to sustain themselves with their labor in a modern, labor-specialized, society.
If they cannot sustain themselves in the specialized society as they could in the unspecialized society, then one of two things must be true, either (1) they are less productive with specialization of labor than they would be without the specialization, or (2) they are not being paid fairly for the value of their labor, understood in terms of real goods and services produced.
If (1) is true, then their job shouldn't even exist in an efficient society (they'd accomplish more by living off the land!), and if (2) is true, then even you, I'd surmise would agree that they are not being paid fairly.
Ah, but you are equivocating between two notions of "better off":
1. Better off than they would have been without any transaction taking place
2. Better off than they would have been with a different transaction taking place instead ( for example, with a different wage or price).
It is absolutely true that the free market exchange implies that (1) is the case. However, it does not follow that (2) also holds.
Can you elaborate on (2)? I don't understand it. (maybe my brain has turned off for the day).
Well, there are differing ways of determining what a job is actually worth, and they are not necessarily identical. I'd argue that it must be based on actual productivity of goods and services that are necessary for someone, even if that someone is not the employee but rather is a customer of whatever business you are in.
Availability of labor that can accomplish the job is also a determining factor in what a job is worth.
If two jobs have same productivity output but one requires no training while other requires eight years of specialized training, the second job will be worth more. There will be less talent available who went through that specialized training available.
Availability of labor that can accomplish the job is also a determining factor in what a job is worth.
If two jobs have same productivity output but one requires no training while other requires eight years of specialized training, the second job will be worth more. There will be less talent available who went through that specialized training available.
Would that not mean the specialized training had no economic value?
Well, there are differing ways of determining what a job is actually worth, and they are not necessarily identical. I'd argue that it must be based on actual productivity of goods and services that are necessary for someone, even if that someone is not the employee but rather is a customer of whatever business you are in.
Specialization of labor is something that is done to benefit people. Given that it is possible for people to live off the land in hunter-gatherer/agrarian society, they should also be able to sustain themselves with their labor in a modern, labor-specialized, society.
If they cannot sustain themselves in the specialized society as they could in the unspecialized society, then one of two things must be true, either (1) they are less productive with specialization of labor than they would be without the specialization, or (2) they are not being paid fairly for the value of their labor, understood in terms of real goods and services produced.
If (1) is true, then their job shouldn't even exist in an efficient society (they'd accomplish more by living off the land!), and if (2) is true, then even you, I'd surmise would agree that they are not being paid fairly.
I really was only asking if you thought I, as the employer, should decide what to pay, not how to decide what to pay.
Your arguments don't apply to a real life agreement between an employer offering a job to an employee. Each decides if it's a fair trade and worthwhile, or they move on.
Funny thing, at 18, my employee already is an avid hunter, can live off the land, and is working on a specialized trade on the side. Plus she has her own vehicle so she can work wherever and whenever she wants. We don't need a government mandate to have a positive work relationship.
I really was only asking if you thought I, as the employer, should decide what to pay, not how to decide what to pay.
Your arguments don't apply to a real life agreement between an employer offering a job to an employee. Each decides if it's a fair trade and worthwhile, or they move on.
Funny thing, at 18, my employee already is an avid hunter, can live off the land, and is working on a specialized trade on the side. Plus she has her own vehicle so she can work wherever and whenever she wants. We don't need a government mandate to have a positive work relationship.
Well, this thread is about minimum wages, not really about whether an employer has more say than the employee on what the wage will be. That latter issue is certainly an important one from the perspective of the labor markets but is not strictly on topic in regards to how much the government should set for minimum wage.
It certainly doesn't, since nothing happens in a vacuum and we cannot assume an infinite need for that being produced by the lower skill worker.
Well, if the finite need is coming into play, meaning that the supply is running into limited demand, then someone's going to be unemployed, in which case the wage, for them at least, becomes irrelevant.
Don't people realize if minimum wage was $15 hr everything around them would just become more expensive. Food, Clothes, Rent.. they'd all increase as businesses would have to raise prices to pay employees higher wages. Plus people would be very aware that minimum wage doubled and now people have higher incomes, so prices will rise simply because they can. There is always going to be someone at the bottom that's just the way it is.. It stinks.. but there's very little that can be done about that.
And you can't just make it $15hr overnight. Imagine I run a small company and I make $50k a year. My 10 employees each make $24k a year (around $10.50hr). If minimum wage suddenly went to $15 I'd have to come up with an extra $45 every hour. That comes out to an extra $93,000 a year... Where in the world am I supposed to come up with that when its already about double my salary and I'm the owner!!???? I'd be forced to fire a few of my guys, that or close down the business and go get a job flipping burgers at $15hr.
And, by the same reasoning, why you are any better or more deserving than a business owner who could run a profitable business given an ample supply of eager and willing $1/hr laborers. From his point of view, $10.50/hr would have been a communist plot to destroy America and his exemplary livelyhood.
Btw, at $15/hr I would take a paycut to get hold on one of those jobs, killing myself to earn $10/hr extra, I would feel stupid, it doesnt feel any better to kill oneself for $15/hr extra, it just that minimum $15/hr would allow many suckers just like me to "downshift", this would create intense competition for $15/hr jobs while employers paying a little more would be scrambling to find willing idiots.
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.
