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.
You were able to make it back then because your mother was an amazing woman carefully budgeting her expenses vs her income. She never told you about the times that she cried because she didn't know what she was going to do about this bill or that, or where she was going to get food for dinner with $1.00. It's not because her wage was the equivalent of $20 an hour today. I know, I was there with a few million of my closest friends.
In the seventies there was no internet, no cell phone, no required car or health insurance, no computer, and no cable or satellite TV bill to pay. If you needed a car you could pick up a usable junker for a couple of hundred dollars. Thrift stores were FULL of low-cost necessities of life because people were constantly buying new and better and donating the originals, and stores ran regular clearance sales at excellent discounts, not today's 'regular price $12.99, clearance price $12.00'.
God, I miss those days. You could pick up a really nice car for $500 and it would last 10 years because they weren't beat to hell from commuting 50 miles one way as folks do today. You could pick up a used 67 Mustang for dirt with 50K on it and it would still run today if you took care of it. My buddy has a 62 Falcon in his backyard in unbelievable shape. The entire car is original, the paint is 8/10 and the interior is the same. Not bad for 53 years old. It has a straight 6 so it isn't going to guzzle gas.
Your thoughtful proposal solves zero of my concerns. The raw, basic, fundamental, inescapable fact is that when the price of something goes up, less of it gets used. If you raise the price of low-skill labor, less of it will get used. Jobs will be destroyed. This is a cruel trick to pull on those least able to afford it.
I have the same concerns that many have about CEO pay--maybe a couple hundred instances in our land of 300 million people--but the vast majority of workers are paid the market value of their labor. Some union workers enjoy above-market-wages but we have seen this is not sustainable. No one is paid below-market wages, since workers can simply go to the employer with the better offer. But if people are working under the best conditions any employer is willing to offer, they ARE receiving an equitable wage.
Your version of "equitable" is to pay less to those who deserve it, and pay more to those who have not earned it. This is in no sense equitable.
It is unfortunate that so many of us have not figured out how to be sufficiently valuable to the rest of society to earn a living wage. A decent society will provide for those who need it. Only an ignorant society would throw that social burden onto the backs of the employers who provide the paychecks for over 100,000,000 people in the US.
Your argument is not that the different kind of minimum wage would be worse. Your argument is that there should be no minimum wage at all. Therefore you're in a different argument than the one you're replying to.
It has nothing to do with being "valuable" and everything to do with a lack of business ethics. Middle-class jobs that used to pay the bills are no longer enough for a lot of people, because wages and benefits are eroding while corporate profits explode. It's not just a matter of inequity -- it's unsustainable. Henry Ford understood that you want to pay your workers enough so they can buy your products. Now companies like Wal-Mart are just as happy to let their workers go on food stamps to pick up the shortfall. If they have to choose between clothes for the kids and medicine for an illness, too bad.
People complain about the $15 minimum wage, and I don't contend that's a panacea, but $15 full time is only a little under $32K a year. That's not a whole lot these days. I think we're losing sight of just how far out of whack wages are with the escalating cost of living.
That's why I'll go out of my way to support companies like Costco or The Container Store that still offer decent wages and benefits. They treat their employees like an important part of the business, as they should. Heck, it even makes good business sense. If you take good care of your workers, they'll be happier workers, and happier workers are more productive workers. That translates into a more positive customer experience, which in turn leads to higher sales.
You'd think this would be common sense, but the allure of greed is apparently too powerful for too many corporations these days.
So with your government meddling in the marketplace, interfering with wages, you admit that fewer workers will be needed. Another way to say this is, you admit there will be JOB LOSSES. "More productive workers" literally means that seven "more productive workers" could do the work formerly done by ten workers.
But the bleeding heart compassion does not extend to the three workers who are no longer needed?
The minimum wage is a hoax, perpetrated by those who combine an air of moral superiority with pure cruelty. Nice combination.
The biggest advantage of a high minimum wage is that it motivates employers to find ways to get by with fewer workers. Those ways are valuable. They have to be created. Therefore this is a way to motivate employers to be more creative. And more creativity is exactly what we need, to keep improving our economy forever. When people get in the habit of being creative, they become more and more creative as they get experience at creativity. The workers win too, because creativity creates new industries, and an endless demand for new workers. And unemployed workers often get creative while unemployed, and start new industries themselves. So more workers get more work at higher wages. How can anyone be against that?
Some people argue for laissez faire and caveat emptor. But the fallacy in those arguments is that those philosophies don't exist in a vacuum. If we really had those, and could rely on continuing to have them, the economy might improve even more. But we don't have them, and if we did, they wouldn't be reliable, because people would find ways to subvert and overthrow them. It's the nature of the human race to spend 90% of its time and energy in war, crime, and politics. It's our job as innocent creative citizens to find ways to optimize the other 10%. Attacking the 90% is like beating our heads against a brick wall. We only get bloody heads, and it takes our attention away from the important 10%.
The biggest advantage of a high minimum wage is that it motivates employers to find ways to get by with fewer workers. Those ways are valuable. They have to be created. Therefore this is a way to motivate employers to be more creative. And more creativity is exactly what we need, to keep improving our economy forever. When people get in the habit of being creative, they become more and more creative as they get experience at creativity. The workers win too, because creativity creates new industries, and an endless demand for new workers. And unemployed workers often get creative while unemployed, and start new industries themselves. So more workers get more work at higher wages. How can anyone be against that?
Some people argue for laissez faire and caveat emptor. But the fallacy in those arguments is that those philosophies don't exist in a vacuum. If we really had those, and could rely on continuing to have them, the economy might improve even more. But we don't have them, and if we did, they wouldn't be reliable, because people would find ways to subvert and overthrow them. It's the nature of the human race to spend 90% of its time and energy in war, crime, and politics. It's our job as innocent creative citizens to find ways to optimize the other 10%. Attacking the 90% is like beating our heads against a brick wall. We only get bloody heads, and it takes our attention away from the important 10%.
Another proponent of job losses. You people really are cruel.
The market is the wellspring of creativity and growth, not government-enforced misallocation of resources.
This is all completely false. The "raising the minimum wage will destroy everything" myth is a scare tactic pushed by conservatives to scare people into voting against themselves. As mentioned, the minimum wage has been raised many times with no ill effects. The entire purpose of the original enactment of the minimum wage was to ensure EVERY American earns a LIVING wage. If the minimum wage can't do that, then we may as well not have it all.
Thanks to Reaganomics, wages have been stagnant for 30 years and everyone but the 1% are paying for it. These "job creators" you all speak so highly of would be more than happy to treat us as they do their factory workers in China. If we continue to allow them to hoard the money and not pay their employees their fair share, in a few years, we will BE China.
People used to be able to support their family on minimum wage. They weren't rich, but they didn't need food stamps to get by either. If the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour, the dollar menu will become the $1.15 menu. Prices won't fluctuate much because people won't pay $5 for a crappy burger. People will also have more money to spend and this creates more jobs, unlike tax breaks which do nothing but give the wealthy more money.
The idea that everyone "should learn a trade/skill/get an education" is completely impractical for many reasons. One, not everyone can afford or is cut out for advanced education, two there are not enough jobs in advanced positions and three, who will work these "bottom rung" jobs if everyone "gets a better job?"
The average low wage worker is in their late 20s/early 30s. A lot of them are underemployed because they can't find a job in their field of choice. If a person shows up to work everyday, does their job well and works full time, they should be able to pay their bills, have food and shelter without government assistance. These billion dollar corporations can easily afford to do this, but they have convinced a lot of people this is bad, so we don't require them to do so.
America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world! We should not have any impoverished citizens, yet we have the HIGHEST rate of poverty in the industrialised world. We can still have capitalism while requiring fair wages. It is not an either/or situation.
CEO salaries have been any rocketing because they don't invest into their companies anymore. Instead of buying health insurance, paying fair wages, providing safe working environments, paid vacation, etc, they are just pocketing that money.
This is not true. Most money is inherited and many high level jobs are given to friends or family members. I'm not saying it's impossible for the average Joe to become a big wig, but for the most part it's who you know these days.
I know someone who people are making a big fuss about around here because at his young age (early 30s) he launched a $350 million condo project. What all these boasting magazine articles and news segments are failing to note, is that he comes from an extremely wealthy family and his father loaned him the money to start this business. What do you think the odds are of this exact same person launching a huge condo complex at age 30 if his parents were just a middle class family? Probably almost 0.
Exactly.
You may as well call yourself a liberal progressive.
1. If we continue to allow them to hoard the money
What exactly does "if we continue to allow them to hoard their money" mean? If you have money you can do with it as you wish, no?
Are you suggesting government legislate what people do with their wealth?
2. People used to be able to support their family on minimum wage Nobody supported a family on $2.75 hr in recent history. $2.75*40 = $110 week. That's $5720 a year before taxes.
I made $4 hr out of HS in the 70s and it was hard labor. $160 before taxes and about $120 after. I had no health, dental or eye insurance and certainly no paid vacation. Rent, food, utilities, gas and car insurance ate the rest up. I was single and had 3 roommates. I'm glad I went to college and studied something I could earn a living doing.
3. the dollar menu will become the $1.15 menu. Prices won't fluctuate much because people won't pay $5 for a crappy burger. The dollar menu is already the dollar plus menu and goes beyond $1.15. People will gladly stand in a line to pay $5 and more for a crappy burger. Ever been to 5 Guys? Their standard burger is at least $6. The burgers the crap chains want you to buy are in the $5 range. Go price a Whopper or Big Mac. I don't know what you do when out to eat but it is expensive as hell.
4. The idea that everyone "should learn a trade/skill/get an education" is completely impractical for many reasons. One, not everyone can afford or is cut out for advanced education, two there are not enough jobs in advanced positions and three, who will work these "bottom rung" jobs if everyone "gets a better job?" You miss the point on people learning a trade or skill. I served two apprenticeships by the time I was 30 so I could work. If you are an apprentice you have a job. Apprentices make better money than the zero skill folks. If you liken getting an education to going to college you may have a valid point about not affording it. That should have been considered when the student was in HS as good grades = scholarships. Tech/trade schools are not college and are far less expensive. They will help anyone who wants to attend to secure financing. There are lots of jobs people can learn from one of these schools that are needed in everyday life. Who services your HVAC at home? Who works on your vehicles? Who builds your houses, fixes your plumbing, electrical troubles, roofs your house or any of a million things? The bottom rung is where many get their start.
Liberals who have open arms for illegal invaders can kick themselves for a lot of the bottom rung/construction trades disappearing as those folks come up here and work as pack mules for half of what they should. I remember when Americans did those jobs. Americans built the interstate highway system. Who do you see out on construction sites/road crews now? Illegals.
5. The average low wage worker is in their late 20s/early 30s. A lot of them are underemployed because they can't find a job in their field of choice. If a person shows up to work everyday, does their job well and works full time, they should be able to pay their bills, have food and shelter without government assistance. These billion dollar corporations can easily afford to do this, but they have convinced a lot of people this is bad, so we don't require them to do so. If the average low wage earner is in their late 20s - early 30s....what did they do before that? Those wagers are for those in their late teens-early 20s. I was out of the house at 18 and never looked back. I have only worked one minimum wage job and that was because I had to if I wanted to eat and live. It was during the mid 80s and wasn't fun but I made it for a year.
6. If a person shows up to work everyday, does their job well and works full time, they should be able to pay their bills, have food and shelter without government assistance. These billion dollar corporations can easily afford to do this, but they have convinced a lot of people this is bad, so we don't require them to do so.
Doing what? We sent a message long ago to domestic manufacturers telling them we would rather pay little to nothing for junk made overseas and they obliged us. Who makes our clothes for us? How many linen mills are on these shores now? Too many of you decided decades ago you would rather drive Japanese cars than American. Those were jobs that walked out of existence as we knew them and likely never to return. We happily outsource everything so we can pay less for it. Those jobs are gone so the only way people can afford to live - on one salary - is through government assistance. It was not uncommon for many skilled people to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, especially if those ends were far apart.
You again want to legislate how corporate America does business. That's socialism.
7. CEO salaries have been any rocketing because they don't invest into their companies anymore. Instead of buying health insurance, paying fair wages, providing safe working environments, paid vacation, etc, they are just pocketing that money.
You want those of wealth to compensate those without so they are on a level plane? What makes you believe everyone should have the same salary, health care, vacations and everything else that goes along with the concept of "fair"?
You are aware people don't start companies to create jobs, correct? People layout cash to make money. You getting a job because of such is because they were successful in their investment and needed help to keep it going. Have you ever "just pocketed money"? Is it of your business to worry about what salary a CEO gets?
8. I'm not saying it's impossible for the average Joe to become a big wig, but for the most part it's who you know these days. It has been this way forever. I have only landed jobs on my own volition 3 times. Other times it has been through networking with those in my field.
Something that goes unsaid in these forums - because it is painful to admit - is most people are living way above their means with no thought to their needs. If you are trying to live the lifestyle of the rich and famous on Homer Simpson's salary it isn't going to work and you will cry "UNFAIR". If you can't afford a 3K sf house you don't buy one. If you can only afford used cars, drive them. No one will think less of you. If they do, it's their problem. Most people spend rather than save. How can you spend if you can't save? Is keeping up with the neighbors that important? The latest smart phone, car, TV, laptop and tablet? Does the entire family need one of each or could they get by sharing one or two?
Does anyone wear "hand-me-down-clothes" or is that a poor thing? Does anyone know where the nearest thrift store is?
Readily available credit ruined America. At one time credit was almost sacred to the average Joe. The average Joe didn't take out mortgages on $400K houses or $50K vehicles just 40 years ago. People didn't finance vacations which the whole family would fly across country for 7-10 days. Airline tickets, rental car, room and board aren't cheap and like Christmas, most are still paying for it the next time around. Most people drove to places for vacations they could afford in the past. How many people blow up thousands going to Disneyworld or like place every year? Credit makes most of it all possible as families would need to save the cash up if no credit was available. If they can't save the cash they don't go on vacation.
Sad, right? No, it's realistic. What many fail to realize about the recession we are still experiencing is we brought it upon ourselves largely through abuse of credit.The average American does so and allows the government to do the same when they keep voting in the same folks who screw us over every term they are in office. However, we can't sit on our butts and point our fingers at the government for everything bad that happens - we are responsible in part as well. If we allow government to legislate us to depression mode it is on us.
Another proponent of job losses. You people really are cruel.
Job losses aren't cruel. Employees who work by the hour are like slaves. Selling their time because they're desperate for income. That desperation is like chains, like the chains that shackled slaves.
In your kind of laissez faire economy, there would be real slaves, a lot of slaves, because restriction of the slave trade is a government-imposed restriction on business.
If employees earned enough, they would have enough savings to be able to find jobs carefully without being desperate and finding the wrong jobs for them. Higher minimum wages would lead to more and better jobs, not misallocation of slaves. Fewer workers per industry means more industries can flourish, and the demand for workers would increase, not decrease.
The economy is not a zero sum game. There is no need for the human race to always be at war against itself, trying desperately to divide itself into winners and losers. What we need is more civilization, and more putting the barbaric practices of the past behind us.
The Luddites were cruel. They thought they were fighting against cruelty. Like you, they misunderstood. The future holds huge promise for everyone. We need to stop fighting it and start making it work for us.
Wages are a cost of business just like rent and utilities are
This is why all who wish to see an increase in wages should be pushing for measures that reduce the cost of doing business, such as the elimination of corporate taxes and eliminating all but the most necessary regulations. Less money spent on compliance and taxes = more money available for payroll, or lower prices due to less overhead reducing demand for revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7 Wishes
if a company can't pay at least an amount for a certain person to afford a basic living
The flaw in this thinking is assuming that the employee's cost of living should become an obligation of the company for whom the person chooses to work. Should an employee have to present their household budget to their employer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok
Employees who work by the hour are like slaves. Selling their time because they're desperate for income. That desperation is like chains, like the chains that shackled slaves.
My employer recently switched us from commission pay to hourly pay, and I'm making even more now than I was then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
As mentioned, the minimum wage has been raised many times with no ill effects.
But these repeated MW hikes haven't eliminated or reduced poverty, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
The entire purpose of the original enactment of the minimum wage was to ensure EVERY American earns a LIVING wage. If the minimum wage can't do that, then we may as well not have it all.
Fine with me, let's get rid of it. Very few people work for MW for any length of time, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
People used to be able to support their family on minimum wage.
Anyone who is unwilling to do anything that will cause them to earn more than MW shouldn't be influencing children. Lack of work ethic is something that should not be perpetuated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
The average low wage worker is in their late 20s/early 30s. A lot of them are underemployed because they can't find a job in their field of choice.
Then they obviously need to choose a more lucrative field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
If a person shows up to work everyday, does their job well and works full time, they should be able to pay their bills, have food and shelter without government assistance.
Reducing the COL by the measures stated in my first reply of this post, plus reducing the tax burden upon the individual, would be a HUGE step in reducing the need for government assistance. The constant cries for higher wages addresses only half of a perosn's financial picture; the less they have to spend, the less they will have to earn to meet their financial obligations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennies4Penny
America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world! We should not have any impoverished citizens, yet we have the HIGHEST rate of poverty in the industrialised world. We can still have capitalism while requiring fair wages. It is not an either/or situation.
It is unfortunate that so many of us have not figured out how to be sufficiently valuable to the rest of society to earn a living wage. A decent society will provide for those who need it. Only an ignorant society would throw that social burden onto the backs of the employers who provide the paychecks for over 100,000,000 people in the US.
I will take that a step further and say it is unfortunate that we place such wide ranging values on jobs based on importance to the employer. I think any job that needs to be done should pay enough for the worker to provide for themselves and a dependent (I do consider continuing to exist as a species to be a priority) in a reasonable fashion. I would even go further and say that all workers deserve some recreation. The should be able to afford to spend a few days at the beach in a motel, occasionally eating out at a moderately priced restaurant, etc. Some people have positions of authority or have highly specialized skills and I think it is quite fair to reward them with higher pay. But when it starts being orders of magnitude it gives me pause. Should one job pay 10 times more than another? 100 times?
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.
