Minimum wage is an issue of character. (banks, workers, profit)

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

… Whatever level of benefits society in general decides is appropriate, should be paid for by society in general. It is wrong to shift a portion of the economic burden for that benefit solely to business owners.

Originally Posted by Supposn
TaxPhD, the minimum wage rate doesn’t require employers to hire or retain any employees. guarantee anyone a job or an income; it doesn’t determine wage rate differentials; it doesn’t require employers to retain any worker. But employers are prohibited from paying less than the legally mandated minimum wage rate. To permit them to do so would be to the net detriment of our nation’s economy and our society… .
/////////////
Vic Romano, I suppose we both regret TaxPhd isn’t aware, or cannot accept, or understand, or remember what as you stated, “every single working American already knows”. Respectfully, Supposn

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by JobHunter2018

Which was utterly pointless, irrational and far off the mark.


You made a post that anyone could see and quite easily debunk.


You made a post that indicated you know nothing about logic or economics whatsoever and nothing you say should be taken seriously in any way whatsoever. Either that or you're just trying to get under people's skin. Which is it?

I teach graduate school economics.

I invited the other guy to debunk a $75K minimum wage he didn't really. Nor did you for that matter.

________

There is no intent on my part to get under people's skin. But instead to help the tiny few who will think things through that economics and economic decisions cannot/should not be made on emotional grounds.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by redguard57

What the developed countries that don't have minimum wage share are strong worker protections and a culture of unions, guilds, etc...

So then you should want to get rid of MW so that union and guild culture grows.

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by ddm2k

In other words, by 5 years' tenure, EVERYONE is making top pay. If someone has lasted 4 years but the manager considers them too dicey to be approaching top pay, however, they also haven't done anything so egregious as to be fired for behavior, performance, etc. - THAT IS A MANAGER PROBLEM, NOT AN EMPLOYEE PROBLEM.

I guess you don't realize that you just made it an employee problem, not a manager problem.

The employee is either worth the top pay or not - they may be worth the 4 year wage but if they don't add enough value for the "top pay", then they will be let go. In "at will" employment situation - they can be fired for any reason but underperforming for the wages paid is a performance issue. Conversely, you are also limiting a top employee wages by capping them at the "top pay" even though their value to the company and what an employee is willing to pay may be significantly higher.

You just created a minimum wage AND a maximum wage without even realizing - wage is not based on performance or value, only time - not advantageous to the employer or the good worker.

[Vic Romano]

Originally Posted by Supposn

Originally Posted by Supposn
TaxPhD, the minimum wage rate doesn’t require employers to hire or retain any employees. guarantee anyone a job or an income; it doesn’t determine wage rate differentials; it doesn’t require employers to retain any worker. But employers are prohibited from paying less than the legally mandated minimum wage rate. To permit them to do so would be to the net detriment of our nation’s economy and our society… .
/////////////
Vic Romano, I suppose we both regret TaxPhd isn’t aware, or cannot accept, or understand, or remember what as you stated, “every single working American already knows”. Respectfully, Supposn

Wow, can't believe use your posts to say absolutely nothing.

What were you trying to achieve by repeating your drivel? You have not responded to TaxPHD with a meaningful reply.

And why are you deflecting by saying "We both regret..."? You are avoiding TaxPHd. Don't try to attribute your opinions to me. Either YOU are really stupid or really naive to think he doesn't accept or understand.

We all see through your smoke screen. If you really respected the posters on this board you would engage in debate. C'mon admit you are in over your head. Then you might be respected...

Unrespectfully, Vic Romano

[ddeemo]

Originally Posted by Supposn

TaxPhD, the minimum wage rate doesn’t require employers to hire or retain any employees. guarantee anyone a job or an income; it doesn’t determine wage rate differentials; it doesn’t require employers to retain any worker. But employers are prohibited from paying less than the legally mandated minimum wage rate. To permit them to do so would be to the net detriment of our nation’s economy and our society.

Respectfully, Supposn

Just FYI - US minimum wage law does allow paying less than the minimum wage - almost 2x as many make less than the FMW as make the FMW - about 1% of hourly employees make the FMW and just over 2% earn less than the FMW according to Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some allowed to be paid less than the FMW include:
Workers under age 20 can earn less than the minimum wage for the first 90 days of their employment.
Workers with disabilities can earn less.
Full-time students employed in certain jobs such as vocational jobs, interns and teachers assistants.
Farm workers
Workers related to the owner
Seasonal workers such as workers at a ski resort.
Independent contractors such as Uber drivers and Au pairs
Tipped employees such as servers in restaurants
Department of labor exempt jobs such as switchboard operators, Merchant Seamen, fishing industry employees, newspaper delivery persons, etc

[griffon652]

Originally Posted by EDS_

1. Name one that would actually work.

2. How?

3. What misuse?

Honestly, as an economist if you already aren't aware of how part of the money was misused then there is no point in having this discussion. You could be a very intelligent individual and you may be well versed in economics but your lack of knowledge on this subject is too glaring for me to engage with you any further. It would simply take too much time/effort on my part to type enough context and then to answer your questions. Its like trying to discuss the founding of the 13 colonies with someone when they are not even aware of where they came from and for what reason.

Also, based on your other replies on this topic you would then come up with some counter that misses the whole point of what I reply to you with (kind of like your replies to my other posts). So with all due respect lets just agree to disagree.

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by ddeemo

Just FYI - US minimum wage law does allow paying less than the minimum wage - almost 2x as many make less than the FMW as make the FMW - about 1% of hourly employees make the FMW and just over 2% earn less than the FMW according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. ...

DDeemo, there has been instances when I’ve regretted my choice of words, but the post you quoted ain’t one of them.

I’m aware of employers that may not now be required to pay their employees the $7.25 federal minimum wage rate, and employers that are legally required to pay higher minimum rates, and employers that are legally required to pay only a specific rate that’s less than the federal $7.25 minimum wage rate. These aforementioned minimum rates are all legally mandated minimum wage rates.

What’s the point of your post? Respectfully, Supposn

[Supposn]

Originally Posted by Vic Romano

Wow, can't believe use your posts to say absolutely nothing.
.
What were you trying to achieve by repeating your drivel? You have not responded to TaxPHD with a meaningful reply.
And why are you deflecting by saying "We both regret..."? You are avoiding TaxPHd. Don't try to attribute your opinions to me. Either YOU are really stupid or really naive to think he doesn't accept or understand.

We all see through your smoke screen. If you really respected the posters on this board you would engage in debate. C'mon admit you are in over your head. Then you might be respected...
Unrespectfully, Vic Romano

Vic Romano, OK; your post was less than explicit, and I misjudged your motives.
You accuse me of “not responded to TaxPHD with a meaningful reply? I often reply meaningfully to his posts discussing minimum wage rates. I respond more explicitly to more explicit posts. Respectfully, Supposn

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by Supposn

TaxPhD, the minimum wage rate doesn’t require employers to hire or retain any employees. guarantee anyone a job or an income; it doesn’t determine wage rate differentials; it doesn’t require employers to retain any worker. But employers are prohibited from paying less than the legally mandated minimum wage rate. To permit them to do so would be to the net detriment of our nation’s economy and our society.

Respectfully, Supposn

Stating the obvious is silly as no one is disagreeing with the point that MW doesn’t require employment.

The issue, that apparently went completely over your head, is that it’s wrong for a societal burden to shift to an employer, simply because the employer has offered a job.