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 have an art degree, as well as a business degree. But I will be the FIRST to admit that what I learned is not what I have experienced in real life. and I pretty much forgot what I have learned when I was in college.
You should've gone to a better business school then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
What I've seen is increasing minimum wage kills jobs. I can only speak for myself. ALL the retailers have cut employees' hours. I've seen minimum wage earner lost their jobs on daily basis. This is reality.
Reality unsubstantiated by any empirical data nor research. It's called anecdotal evidence.
In the fantasy world, yes "giving" these people more money would reduce poverty.
However, in reality A major reason why the minimum wage is such an ineffective anti-poverty tool is that minimum-wage hikes cause businesses to reduce the number of workers they hire and the hours they ask their employees to work.
businesses have to be able to afford "GIVING" to these low wage earners. Money doesn't grow on a tree.
Yeah, the economically illiterate seem to think that jobs are some twisted form of charity.
Everybody whose labor is worth $15 per hour is already making $15 per hour. The message to anyone who is NOT making $15 per hour but would like to: make yourself more useful to the rest of us.
The nursing homes are paying low-skilled labor $10-$12 per hour. Hmm. If you can't make it on $8 per hour in fast food, why don't you get a clue and do something more worthwhile with your time?
Or did I miss something? Are people now born to be fast food workers and cannot leave that job, ever? Or is McDonalds into slavery?
This I can tell you: attempting to coerce charity out of employers, having them overpay for labor, is a recipe for higher unemployment and economic stagnation. This will hurt the lower income brackets worse than anyone else.
Yeah, the economically illiterate seem to think that jobs are some twisted form of charity.
Everybody whose labor is worth $15 per hour is already making $15 per hour. The message to anyone who is NOT making $15 per hour but would like to: make yourself more useful to the rest of us.
The nursing homes are paying low-skilled labor $10-$12 per hour. Hmm. If you can't make it on $8 per hour in fast food, why don't you get a clue and do something more worthwhile with your time?
Or did I miss something? Are people now born to be fast food workers and cannot leave that job, ever? Or is McDonalds into slavery?
This I can tell you: attempting to coerce charity out of employers, having them overpay for labor, is a recipe for higher unemployment and economic stagnation. This will hurt the lower income brackets worse than anyone else.
valid point.
I would also argue that Private industry and the free market are already taking care of it. Even low-skill, entry level positions in many areas already pay higher than minimum wage.
Ordering businesses to pay entry-level workers more will make them hire fewer of them, and consider replacing more workers with robots or computers. That’s good if you are in the robot or computer business, but not so good if you are trying to combat unemployment.
I've worked in retail and food service and honestly it's not an easy peasy job. It might not require a lot of complex skills or an abundance of brain cells, but it's strenuous on the body, plus it involves working with customers, who can be really a pain in the a$$ a lot of times. On top of that you are usually required to work nights, weekends, holidays etc.
None of that is relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the supply of retail and service workers versus the demand for retail and service workers. When there is greater supply than demand, prices fall. When there is greater demand than supply, prices rise.
Quote:
The argument I keep seeing is that these jobs are a step up to something better.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that these jobs do not have a limited enough pool of workers skilled enough to do them to warrant them being paid higher than minimum wage.
Quote:
However, my counter argument is (1) not everyone is management or trade school material what have you. And (2), looking at the job reports and trends, we are creating a lot of service/retail jobs and not too many skilled jobs. Imagine every retail/service employee went to trade school, will there be jobs for them all?
No, but many of the retail/service employees are students working part time. So not every retail/service employee needs a liveable wage. But again, it really doesn't matter what the employee needs. Your employer is not responsible for meeting your needs. You're responsible for meeting your own needs.
Quote:
What is wrong with these people that ring up your coffee to be paid a wage that can afford them a place to live not in the ghetto, food on the table, utilities, a decent vehicle, entertainment and some money to put away. Why do these people have to work 2 or 3 part-time min-wage jobs, just to scrape by. Yes it's not rocket science, but it's still work. Honest work at that. I can tell you that I don't work as hard in my "cushy" office job as I did when I was serving tables in college. At least in the office I don't deal with customers, I can take a break when I want, go online etc.
Nothing is wrong with them. They just don't have the motivation, skill, and/or talent to get a higher paying job. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone is free to make their own choices.
Quote:
Here's my math. Average McD's employee makes $7.62/hr (I saw on the news this morning). Lets say this person works 40 hours and then makes $304.80/week or $15,240/year (50 weeks). Taxes would be roughly $400 on this income, single. Expenses might look like this (I'm in Florida):
Rent/bills: $500/mos -$6000 for the year
Cell phone: $50/mos - $600 year
Health Insurance: $200/mos - $2400/yr
Car insurance: $50/mos - $600/yr
Clothes: $300/yr
Food: $100/mos - $300/yr
Gas: $80/mos - $960/yr
Car maintenance: $500/yr
Total: $11,660
This leaves roughly $280/mos for savings/entertainment. Maybe I'm missing some expenses, but these are mine. There is no way to raise a child on this income. Even if it's two earners, most of the expenses double and rent goes up for a bigger place. What if there is an emergency or you need to pay your insurance deductible, there is no thing left. Even upping this person's wage to just $12/hr would give them some room for emergencies/savings etc.
What your expenses are isn't relevant to what your wages are. If your expenses exceed your wages, then that's your problem for taking a job that didn't meet your needs. That was a poor choice on your part. You demonstrate some notion that people somehow deserve a liveable wage simply by existing and that employers are somehow responsible for the safety and well-being of the people who flip hamburgers for them. That is not the case. McD's pays you to flip hamburgers. That's it. They don't pay your car insurance. They don't pay for your cell phone. They pay you to flip hamburgers. You then make the choices as to what to do with that money. There is no link whatsoever between McD's and the living expenses of McD's employees.
Quote:
What I'm getting at is, are these peoples not deserving of vacations, children, savings, not having to scrape by.
No, they are not deserving of that. They are deserving of being paid the agreed upon wage in exchange for performing agreed upon tasks. That is it. Nothing more.
Quote:
I mean they are putting in 40 hours of labor as well. And to the argument that they can't even get your order right - my argument is there is probably not a lot of motivation. I know I would put in more effort not to get the order wrong and not to get fired if I was making $12/hr vs. $7. Maybe not start out at $12/hr, but after a year or so employment and having proved yourself, why not make $12/hr? There are companies out there that pay these wages and still turn decent profits.
It is irrelevant whether the company could pay higher wages and still turn a profit. It's not up to you to tell someone else how to run their company. Who did the work in founding the company? You or the owner? Who risked his money and his time and effort trying to get the company to be successful? You or the owner? Once you've answered those questions, you have your answer as to who gets to make the decisions on company operations. It's not you.
This I can tell you: attempting to coerce charity out of employers, having them overpay for labor, is a recipe for higher unemployment and economic stagnation. This will hurt the lower income brackets worse than anyone else.
So you think the system as it stands is acceptable?
In our current system low-wage employers are the recipients of charity in that they don't have to pay a full wage and what they don't pay is made up in tax payer funded welfare benefits. I'm sorry, but the Waltons are the richest family in the world-- and the biggest recipients of "charity" in the name of welfare subsidies for those they employ.
If your expenses exceed your wages, then that's your problem for taking a job that didn't meet your needs. That was a poor choice on your part.
Can I just choose a higher paying job? It's that simple... I'd like to choose a job in which I make double what I make now.
How does this work exactly?
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.
I see this is the best you can get.
