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.
sheesh. something like 97% of all jobs pay more than min wage, which exposes you talk of "third world ideology" as the garbage that it is. Wages reflect one's value to the rest of society. To increase your wages, be of greater value.
Sure but how many of those jobs pay enough to live on? Being a little higher then min wage is not much better. People's value has a lot more to do then what do they do for work. People volunteer their time for no money would you say they are not valuable because what they do does not have monetary value?
There shouldn't be a min. wage. Min wage an employer is willing to pay out and a min. wage an employee is willing to accept should be decided between those two parties and no one else.
There shouldn't be a min. wage. Min wage an employer is willing to pay out and a min. wage an employee is willing to accept should be decided between those two parties and no one else.
The problem with that is it is assuming that is a fair deal. The employer has all the power though because if the person does not take them job then the employer can find someone else if the employee does not take the job they are still jobless. Just because an employee accepts the job does not mean they think that what the job is offered is fair it is just they have to take a job.
sheesh. something like 97% of all jobs pay more than min wage, which exposes you talk of "third world ideology" as the garbage that it is. Wages reflect one's value to the rest of society. To increase your wages, be of greater value.
Wages do not reflect value some of the richest people may be crimminals and the poor may be loyal abiding citizens or the other way around. Just because you have a lot of money does not make you more valuable to society it just means you make more money. Most jobs pay more then min wage yes but the question is how much? If it is not enough to live on then it really is not much better. Value is subjective is Paris Hilton more valuable then a person working fast food even though the only way she earned her money was through her last name?
Sure but how many of those jobs pay enough to live on? Being a little higher then min wage is not much better. People's value has a lot more to do then what do they do for work. People volunteer their time for no money would you say they are not valuable because what they do does not have monetary value?
Yes, but in discussing wages we're speaking of the value to the employer of the work performed. if the business model determines that a fry cook generates $60 of value to the business in an 8 hour shift, then what sense does it make to pay him $80 (plus associated costs)?
When I found myself unsatisfied with the wages I was receiving, I found ways to make myself of greater value to an employer by obtaining additional skills, more education, etc. Simply demanding more money for the same work performed makes no sense. If I have self-imposed obligations (a family to feed, rent, or a car payment), that's my problem, not my employer's. My employer doesn't care, and shouldn't care, about what I've chosen to obligate myself to. All they have to care about is the quality of my work and I dependable in showing up on time and working through my shift.
And don't tell me about the cost of education or obtaining skills. I did it, and no, it wasn't easy. Where there's a will there's a way.
Looking in a mirror and saying "I deserves more!" isn't a plan, unless effort is extended in doing something about it. Life isn't fair, and it's not supposed to be. You cannot change that through legislation. And businesses are not social programs.
There shouldn't be a min. wage. Min wage an employer is willing to pay out and a min. wage an employee is willing to accept should be decided between those two parties and no one else.
Yes that is such an awesome idea, because then the employers can pay a penny, while the employees get food stamps. What a great awesome country we would be.
But they wouldn't, because nobody would show up for work. Many employers who employ unskilled laborers (including Wal-Mart, which I dislike for various reasons) pay anywhere between $1-$2.75 higher then min. Wage IN THE RETAIL WORLD. Other companies may even pay 10-12 depending on the job. Try going on indeed and looking at the local market. Employers will pay as low as they can pay to get someone to show up to work. Same way you pay as little as possible for any other item you buy. And living on a lower wage isn't impossible but you can't have 5 children. "But I can't support my 5 person family working at McDonald's 25 hrs a week". Then don't work at McDonald's or better yet DON'T HAVE CHILDREN IF YOU CAN'T FEED AND CLOTHE THEM. I do however understand not everyone had children in a poor financial situation, single moms who weren't single before. Welfare isn't a bad thing. Use the resources you have and obtain better skills and sacrifice for awhile.
LOL.
OK lets be honest....why do some companies pay $.10 or $1.00 above minimum wage? Because they are competing for something other then the absolute bottom. But when you move that bottom lower....they're going to also reduce their pay.
People will show up for work up until the point where they start dying from lack of food. Thats the real minimum, and the minimum you seem to want.
Let me give an example, the minimum wage is higher in some states then others. Why do people show up for work in those other states? I mean...thats your argument in a nutshell.
As for "Don't have kids" yeah....let me know how that has EVER worked in the history of the human race.
Yes, but in discussing wages we're speaking of the value to the employer of the work performed. if the business model determines that a fry cook generates $60 of value to the business in an 8 hour shift, then what sense does it make to pay him $80 (plus associated costs)?
When I found myself unsatisfied with the wages I was receiving, I found ways to make myself of greater value to an employer by obtaining additional skills, more education, etc. Simply demanding more money for the same work performed makes no sense. If I have self-imposed obligations (a family to feed, rent, or a car payment), that's my problem, not my employer's. My employer doesn't care, and shouldn't care, about what I've chosen to obligate myself to. All they have to care about is the quality of my work and I dependable in showing up on time and working through my shift.
And don't tell me about the cost of education or obtaining skills. I did it, and no, it wasn't easy. Where there's a will there's a way.
Looking in a mirror and saying "I deserves more!" isn't a plan, unless effort is extended in doing something about it. Life isn't fair, and it's not supposed to be. You cannot change that through legislation. And businesses are not social programs.
No business can calculate how much value an employer creates. That is great for you but you are not other people you may had more oppurtunies been born with more intelligent just because you can do it does not prove others can. Saying where there is a will there is a way is just ignorance totally avoiding what some people have to face but it is much easier to be lazy in arguing and blame them.
See, you almost had an intelligent discussion, until you threw in the "liberals" at the end... it is amazing what passes for reasoning around here.
Do you want an actual answer, or are you going to simply judge anyone who doesn't say that there shouldn't be a minimum wage as a "liberal" for having any understanding of economics and empathy for the poor? Aw, heck - I'll answer the question with reason, not that anyone cares about that around here...
There are 2 ways to properly set the minimum wage:
1) The quick and dirty way: Reindex the minimum wage to inflation, starting back when inflation began outpacing it. That would produce a result of about $10 an hour, on average, or so I've read.
2) The complex, but economically honest way: Minimum wages should be determined by whatever level of pay an individual requires to be able to support himself without taxpayer support via social safety nets. In short, raise the minimum wage to the point where the taxpayers are not subsidizing corporate profits. This would be a bit higher than choice 1 and probably vary more by state and housing market, but it would be more honest and more fair to the taxpayers.
Summary: Note that neither result yields $15 per hour, except perhaps in very expensive areas, and nobody here is advocating having a dozen kids if you're working minimum wage. I figured I may as well put those qualifiers in there before I get accused of "being a liberal who supports welfare mommas with 12 kids" or whatever the strawman argument of the week may be.
Why we have proposed and enacted either option is beyond me though the second entirely should fall back to the states rather than come from the federal level as each state has a different COL to it, even individual parts of each state have different COLs.
The problem with this argument is that it's not the corporation's fault that someone decided to have kids they can't afford. The Company also doesn't base pay on the size of a family, so someone using a safety net has very little to do with the company.
And what if those who weren't so reckless with kids, but are still in the same plight? You're punishing then just to get to those who are irresponsible.
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.
