Would you prefer $7.25 40hr week or $15.00 20hr week? (employees, job, companies)

[Androcles]

One of many aspects in the debate about raising the minimum wage is that doing so could hurt workers whose hours may be cut when a higher hourly wage is in place.

Just focusing on this aspect of this multi-layered issue, would you personally be willing to sacrifice hours in exchange for a higher hourly rate, or would you opt for the security of knowing that you have a full time job? What are your thoughts on the matter?

[GoldBears]

Originally Posted by Androcles

One of many aspects in the debate about raising the minimum wage is that doing so could hurt workers whose hours may be cut when a higher hourly wage is in place.

Just focusing on this aspect of this multi-layered issue, would you personally be willing to sacrifice hours in exchange for a higher hourly rate, or would you opt for the security of knowing that you have a full time job? What are your thoughts on the matter?

I rather have the part time $15.00 an hour because it pays $10 more than $7.25 full time

[BrianGC]

Of course I'd rather earn more while working fewer hours. I'd pick up a 2nd job with that amount of free time.

However, the problem with raising minimum wage is that there will be fewer jobs. Companies will find ways to automate those simple tasks. Self-checkout, anyone?

[oceangaia]

Isolating all aspects to the simple question you posed, it's a no-brainer. The 20 hour job pays more than the 40 hour job. Not to mention it gives you 20 more hours to do others things, one of which may be to work another job.


But other aspects cannot be ignored and it is seldom as simple as the question you posed.

[Thoreau424]

The second one offers more money per week, and less hours, which could be worked elsewhere. Easy choice.

[Androcles]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Isolating all aspects to the simple question you posed, it's a no-brainer. The 20 hour job pays more than the 40 hour job. Not to mention it gives you 20 more hours to do others things, one of which may be to work another job.


But other aspects cannot be ignored and it is seldom as simple as the question you posed.

Granted there are other aspects to the issue but this particular issue is repeatedly brought up in various news outlets so I felt it deserved to be addressed.

Also keep in mind guys that benefits sometimes come along with full time employment even if the wage is lower.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Androcles

Granted there are other aspects to the issue but this particular issue is repeatedly brought up in various news outlets so I felt it deserved to be addressed.

Also keep in mind guys that benefits sometimes come along with full time employment even if the wage is lower.

And that's the problem. It often comes up in a distorted representation of a choice between longer hours at a lower wage versus shorter hours at a higher wage. For example, a person working 20 hours (isolating technological and efficacy aspects) will be half as productive as a person working 40 hours. The company making widgets will need to double the price to make the same revenues. So even though in your question the 20 hours at $15 yields slightly more revenue, it probably brings steep inflation to the cost of living.



You can't just double the cost of something, labor in this instance, and not have it's effects ripple across the pond.

[charlygal]

Originally Posted by BrianGC

Of course I'd rather earn more while working fewer hours. I'd pick up a 2nd job with that amount of free time.

However, the problem with raising minimum wage is that there will be fewer jobs. Companies will find ways to automate those simple tasks. Self-checkout, anyone?

Automation is coming irrespective of the minimum wage. Employees, regardless of the MW, are the biggest expenses for companies. They werr already looking to reduce that expense, even at lower MW levels.

Plus, machines are fast and more efficient. Wait until they add in the bots.

[HollyhockGarden]

One issue to look at is if the company offers health insurance benefits to part-time employees working 20 hours a week. Sometimes part-timers are ineligible for benefits. Sometimes in a married couple, one spouse will take a lower-paying job FT position at a company [or with the government] where they have access to enroll in a low-cost, no deductible health insurance plan. This is particularly helpful if one spouse has a chronic and expensive medical condition. You may "earn" more than you realize in the form of benefits, and in time, be able to move up into a better-paying position.

Another example of where this can pay off is to work FT for a state university. Often the employee, spouse, and children can get free college tuition.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by Androcles

One of many aspects in the debate about raising the minimum wage is that doing so could hurt workers whose hours may be cut when a higher hourly wage is in place.

Just focusing on this aspect of this multi-layered issue, would you personally be willing to sacrifice hours in exchange for a higher hourly rate, or would you opt for the security of knowing that you have a full time job? What are your thoughts on the matter?

OP, your poll is just, well, RIDICULOUS. You're asking people, would you rather make $290/week working 40 hours or $300/week working 20 hours? Oh, yes, sign me up to work MORE HOURS for LESS PAY! Sounds great to me because, well, I'm not too bright!

I THINK you were trying to get at some other issue, but the way you worded your question makes no sense at all -- you really do not see that?

I know you later said something like maybe the full-time job has benefits, but that is not at all what you asked in the poll or in the OP.

Perhaps you could ask your question in a way that actually makes some sort of sense?

============

Sorry if I sound mean, it's been a rough day. But if I got that kind of question from one of my students, I would say "Do you really understand what you are asking? Because it makes no sense at all."