It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage is so Good Why are Unions Getting Exemptions From it?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Wrong. If I am not paid enough I get a better job. I have done it several times and have never had a wage decrease. I have value, therefore I get well compensated.


Have you gotten a wage increase? Official inflation right now is 3.5% per year, unofficial inflation has the numbers closer to 8%. Is your wage increasing by more than 8% per year? Even if it is for you, for most people it is not.

Also, by taking a new job, you lower the average wage on a macro level. You leave a job vacant which gets filled by someone else. Usually the new person doesn't make what the previous job holder made, therefore the wage declines.




posted on May, 31 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That explains nothing


Can you actually get specific with real facts or are you just exaggerating?



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Have you gotten a wage increase? Official inflation right now is 3.5% per year...


Yes, I received a 5.79% increase this year (not counting bonuses, commission and RSUs).


Also, by taking a new job, you lower the average wage on a macro level. You leave a job vacant which gets filled by someone else. Usually the new person doesn't make what the previous job holder made, therefore the wage declines.


Yeah? And? Now I need to worry about what my potential replacement's skills and value happen to be? You want me to negotiate their salary prior to departure?



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
The value of employees are based on the industry and specifically the company. The owner should make as much as he can possibly make. He owns all of the risk, debt and liability So in turn he should make as much as he sees fit.


How much risk, debt, and liability does Lloyd Blankfein have? Is it commensurate with the corporation? The entire point behind incorporating is to shield yourself personally from risk and liability.


So then everybody in the middle suffers because the government dictates worth? So then what is the incentive to better yourself if you know for sure that you will make a good wage?


How is the government dictating worth? They're saying that if you find a job important enough that you want to fill it, you better make sure the person can support themselves doing so. A lack of a minimum wage simply offloads the wage burden from the corporation to the taxpayers as we then have to pay for welfare programs to support the person. A strong minimum wage means the corporation is actually paying for their employees, isn't that a good thing?


The part about Henry ford is complete crap. He paid them double of standard factory workers because the work was beyond brutal. He had to hire a work force 3x of that which he needed because turnover was so bad and the work week was so long and even then he struggled to keep a full team. So it was not because he was just being generous.


The work was mostly boring and people didn't want to do it. It doesn't matter why he did it, very few employers are altruistic... does your employer pay you a lot of money just to be a nice guy? What matters is the effect, every competitor and economist of the day said Ford would be bankrupt within a year due to his payment scheme. Yet the exact opposite happened, his company thrived because the employees could actually buy goods from the employer.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

That explains nothing


Can you actually get specific with real facts or are you just exaggerating?



What facts do you want? I just showed how the minutes needed to purchase an item have declined. Tuition for example took 800 hours of work. In order to pay for a years tuition today in 800 hours of work you would need to make $51.19 per hour or $106,480 per year. Buying a home took 11,700 hours of work in order to buy a home in that many hours today you need to make $26.62 an hour or $55,360.

Would you prefer to go by inflation stats? CPI adjustments are the entire mess behind this whole thing which I brought up earlier. Here's some reading on the subject
www.shadowstats.com...

Pretty much the only thing that actually has declined in minutes to buy is groceries but that decline isn't commensurate with the massively increased supply of food that has been produced.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Yes, I received a 5.79% increase this year (not counting bonuses, commission and RSUs).


5.79% is less than the real rate of inflation, it's not even above the CPI rate by very much.


Yeah? And? Now I need to worry about what my potential replacement's skills and value happen to be? You want me to negotiate their salary prior to departure?


I didn't say you had to worry about it, I was giving a brief description of macroeconomics. Look at things from more than the perspective of just yourself on an individual level and look at how all the parts fit into the whole.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Here's more from an article that might sound familiar.



It’s also not true that the offer was of $5 a day in wages. It was all rather more complicated than that:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

source you might be quoting from






posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That's a little better, but still proves nothing you claimed before.

Some people might think you are making things up.

Not very convincing.



5 facts about the minimum wage


edit on May-31-2015 by xuenchen because: [_X_]



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Aazadan

That's a little better, but still proves nothing you claimed before.

Some people might think you are making things up.

Not very convincing.




The source you linked me is getting a bit too literal with the example. Lets put it this way, lets say all of the businesses in the area are paying a high enough wage that a large percentage of the population has say $150 to spend in the local shops per month. Now the local businesses are competing for a lot of additional potential revenue, and all of that potential revenue finds it's way back into the local businesses. That creates additional work which gets more people employed and ultimately creates more profit assuming you're basing your business model on volume.

Here's how people game this system though and why a minimum wage is necessary. Lets say one local business pays half the wage, and those employees don't have money to spend. They'll still get employees, because regardless of the conditions people need food and shelter and will work for just that. If there were 100 local businesses all participating with good wages, now there's 99. The total money available to go back into businesses remains high, but now the person paying lower wages gets a much higher profit margin. Someone else will see this and then there's 98 businesses, then 97, then 96, and eventually all the way down to 1, where such a business model becomes necessary to remain competitive. Without an external set of wage laws there's no incentive for wages to be risen collectively because whoever doesn't raise wages stands to make the most profit. Acting in self interest this then means that no one raises wages, and the economy slows.

However, when you have a minimum wage in effect everyone then needs to pay a viable wage, the economy improves, and you get all of the other benefits I mentioned.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Well then what year(s) was this true?

a reply to: Aazadan

Minimum wage used to have the same purchasing power as a 50k/year job has today. If you had any skills it went up from there.



the inflation graph is this article seems to show today's minimum is fairly steady since the mid 1960s

source

very confusing.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well then what year(s) was this true?

the inflation graph is this article seems to show today's minimum is fairly steady since the mid 1960s

source

very confusing.


Again that comes down to CPI numbers, the whole thing is a self referential system and minimum wage has for a long time been tied to CPI increases, except Congress tends to move minimum wage in larger amounts every few years rather than small increases every year like how they adjust things like Social Security (which is also tied to CPI).

The problem is that the CPI numbers aren't accurate and that's because they're the victim of an accounting trick. Lets go back to 1980. Every history book on Carter/Reagan's presidency will tell you that under Carter there was runaway inflation and that upon getting into office Reagan whipped inflation almost overnight. They're not wrong, but the question you need to ask is why this was the case.

The first thing to do is to explain what CPI is. It's the Consumer Price Index. The main purpose of CPI is that it contains a "basket of goods" that the average household will be assumed to buy over the course of a year. The change in this from year to year is the inflation rate, and that sets the basic interest rate when banks give loans, and from here we go back to my previous post.

Before 1982 (budgets are calculated 2 years in advance so this actually happened in 1980, right after Reagan got into office) inflation was calculated as the difference in the cost of goods from year to year. So if something cost $2 one year and $3 the next there was said to be 50% inflation on that item. By averaging the inflation of each good you can determine the overall inflation or deflation rate for that year.

Well, something interesting happened in the 70's, there started to be a whole lot of new items coming onto the market for people to buy, and the goods started to become more intricate due to which lead to higher prices. People were then assumed to be buying these new and improved goods. As such, the inflation rate was very high. Then Reagan came around and said that what was going on was absurd and the calculations were changed. People were still assumed to be buying goods but inflation went from tracking individual items (like a Nintendo which cost $100 where there was no previous good it was replacing) to overall household expenditures. This meant that if a household was assumed to be spending $20,000 in one year but $20,200 in the next there was an inflation rate of 1%.

Where this is flawed is that it makes the assumption that each household has the ability to simply choose to spend more money on goods. For those on the lower end of the income scale this isn't a choice that people can simply make, they spend 100% of their income no matter what. This means that they don't spend more per year, and therefore inflation is 0% even if the cost of goods continues to rise and people are therefore buying fewer goods.

This is why I gave you that earlier chart (which sadly didn't have the tabs show up in the code tags). The way to compare incomes between then and now can't be done through CPI and compounding inflation. Instead you need to look at how many minutes or hours of work it takes to purchase a comparable item in todays market. An average home for example jumped from 11,700 hours to 42,952 hours, a years tuition from 800 hours to 5,678 hours, and so on. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation this would not be the case, 12,000 hours of work then would buy you a home just as 12,000 hours of work would today.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Whoops, forgot to answer the question you asked me.

As to the quote, what year was that true. It was true in 1955, and was still close in 1967 (note that these are two successive minimum wage bumps, to $1 and $1.40 respectively, so purchasing power in 1966 was actually quite low, getting a 40% bump the following year). It remained true until the mid 70's though minimum wage wasn't quite as strong in 1974 at the next bump to $2.00.

Where the problem occurred isn't in any specific year pre-1982 but rather a compounding of the wage being off by say 1% in 1982, 2% in 1983, and so on until today. It has taken 35 years to reach this point, and there isn't a magic fix for it (note that this is why I don't support a sudden $15 or even $10.10 minimum wage). The only real fix that won't damage the economy is to increase minimum wage by a small percent above the rate of inflation year after year for the next 3 decades, just as it has fallen due to the opposite happening.

No one wants to hear that the fix is to gradually change things for the next 30 years, everyone wants a magic fix right this very moment, but the fact is that's not reasonable. There's a problem and it needs to be addressed but an overnight fix will simply put a lot of business owners and their employees out of work. That doesn't do anyone any good.
edit on 31-5-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Simple, if they raise union wages, then when the rest catch up, they lose out and have no leverage at the table. But if they have the lower wages and all others have a higher wage, then they can use that during negotiations to get a bigger piece of the pie. Hence why they are wanting an exemption right now, as they would lose in the long run. One would have to read the contracts to see what all would be affected.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

When will people realize that all this crap is just a game. The low and middle class have been extorted for years, for all sorts of political reasons. This is just another blatant attempt.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
5.79% is less than the real rate of inflation, it's not even above the CPI rate by very much.


Stop lying, the CPI percentage increase and inflation rate increase was well below that.


I didn't say you had to worry about it, I was giving a brief description of macroeconomics. Look at things from more than the perspective of just yourself on an individual level and look at how all the parts fit into the whole.


Yeah? And? I still have not gone backwards in earnings because I have VALUE.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I take it this is talking about a state minimum wage law?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Lets call this what it really is...redistribution. You raise an idiot worker to $15.00 an hour from $7.25 and hour for no reason, no increased value, etc. So what do you do with the $20.00 manager who is a great worker? Raise him an equal percentage...a little more than 100% to $40.00 per hour? Of course not because your business would have to close. So you give the manager a few bucks...now he makes $22.00 per hour. What have you done? You have taken the percentage you would give the manager, but can't and raised the idiot.

Wealth redistribution and nothing else. It isn't anyones fault that the idiot is an idiot or unskilled, etc. This is like more welfare for the unskilled and therefore, destroys the reasons for better education, working smarter or harder. The same old liberal BS...take from everyone and give to those who don't deserve it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Maximum raio is the answer because everyone who helps run a company that profits in the billions deserves a proper share of that profit regardless how skilled their job is.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

You've never lived a hard day in your life have you?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Stop lying, the CPI percentage increase and inflation rate increase was well below that.


You haven't read a word I've written have you? CPI isn't accurate. CPI is easily manipulated and is done so to keep the inflation rate low. Did you know there is no oversight on the CPI basket of goods? Literally only those in charge of it know what goods are used to calculate it.

Shadowstats provides much more accurate numbers, and they even source it from the government. They peg inflation right now at 7.4%. If your yearly salary increase was less than this you lost purchasing power.

www.shadowstats.com...


Yeah? And? I still have not gone backwards in earnings because I have VALUE.


Earnings and purchasing power are not the same thing. Even if they were, are you sure you have value? Can you honestly say that only those who are more skilled and harder working than you make more than you? Do you not have any subordinates who are more talented than you? Is everyone who has a higher earning position than you more talented? If you can't say that these are true, then how can you be assured of your own value? You must admit the possibility that you are not paid at a rate commensurate with the value you bring to the company, which opens up the possibility that you are over paid relative to your ability.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join