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.
Why?
Because they want to keep them.
Businesses should not be forced to reward degenerate worthless employee's.
It'd be no different than the government forcing you to tip the waitress who never brought you a single refill and dropped your food all over your lap without even giving you a towel to clean up with.
Originally posted by octotom
I think that many people, when discussing minimum wage, forget that if the minimum wage goes up, that the cost of goods will go up too. This is because a company is still going to make at least the same amount of money when the wage raises.
An example. Recenttly, here in Germany a new minimum wage went into effect. The cost of food at McDonald's was jacked up. [I actually thought it was kinda funny because my sister-in-law freaked out--she lives on the stuff I think.]
So in effect, raising the minimum wage doesn't change anything--because the cost of goods will keep going up--
unless you're going to set a cap on how much a business can make, which isn't the right thing to do. At least in my opinion.
If i was making minimum wage...I'd be hopping at the chance to get fired.
Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by David9176
Well, David, I must say I'm surprised. So you think the gov't telling you how much you have to pay a worker is moral?
Sorry, bud, I disagree. They are in effect telling you how many employees you can afford to hire. Talk about inflation - where do you think the small business owner will get the money to pay the higher wage?
From his own altruistic pocket?
Nope. You'll be paying more for that pizza than it's worth.
If i was making minimum wage...I'd be hopping at the chance to get fired.
Why would you do that? Getting fired makes you ineligible for unemployment.
[edit on 12-5-2009 by jsobecky]
Originally posted by Fremd
the only false logic in this thread is the idea that paying a worthless employee a worthwhile wage is somehow a noble cause.
Would you pay Ford motor company $32,000 for a 1987 ford taurus with a big dent in the side?
Well, why not? Ford needs the money!
Originally posted by Fremd
that's because anyone can dig a ditch or flip some burgers
but it usually takes someone special to properly run a major corporation and make executive decisions that result in billions of dollars in profit. (i realize there have been some major idiots in this position, but those are few and far between.....more often than not)
It also says something for those who make more money - they work harder and have more dedication.
Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.
cia.gov...
But in the last dozen years many of the trend lines measuring
American prosperity have flattened out, and some have even
turned downward. For example, average real wages remain today
substantially beloru their levels of the early 1970s. Despite
the rise in the number of two-income households, median after inflation
family income has also dropped. Evidence of lower
incomes and living standards is particularly pronounced among
younger workers, indicating that the generation whose economic
prospects once looked so promising is actually experiencing more
restricted opportunity for good jobs, advancement and income
growth than did their parents’ generation.
At first, many experts advised Americans that these trends were
only temporary. They were said to be products of extraordinary
“jolts” to our economic system, like the oil shortage, or of
demographic aberrations, like the baby boom, which would disappear
with time.
Others argued that declining incomes were caused by excessive
growth of government. In 1980 a new Administration promised
that its program of radical cuts in the civilian government activities
would unleash productive private investment and spark a long
term economic boom. Almost six years later, investment was stag
nant, the unemployment rate remained at levels that once would
have signaled a recession, and the central premise of so-called
“supply-side” economics had failed the test of the real world.
www.epinet.org...
Since 1967, the median household income in the United States has risen modestly, fluctuating several times. Even though personal income has risen substantially and 42% of all household now have two income earners, the median household income has increased only slightly. According to the US Census Bureau, this paradoxial set of trends is due to the changing structure of American households. For example, while the proportion of wives working year-round in married couple households with children has increased fron 17% in 1967 to 39% in 1996, the proportion of such households among the general population has decreased. Thus, while married couple households with children are the most economically prosperous type of household in the United, their share of the population has been dwindeling in the United States. In 1969, more than 40% of all households consisted of a married couple with children. By 1996 only a rough quater of US households consisted of married couples with children. As a result of these changing household demographics, median household income rose only slighly despite an ever increasing female labor force and a considerable increase in the percentage of college graduates.[26]
“
"From 1969 to 1996, median household income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars... The 1969 to 1996 stagnation in median household income may, in fact, be largely a reflection of changes in the size and composition of households rather than a reflection of a stagnating economy."- John McNeil, US Census Bureau
”
Overall, the median household income rose from $33,338 in 1967 to an all-time high of $44,922 in 1999, and has since decreased slightly to $43,318. Decreases in household income are visible during each recession, while increases are visible during economic upturns. These fluctuations were felt across the income strata as the incomes of both, the 95th and 20th percentile were affected by flactuations in the economy. Yet, it is important to note that income in the period between 1967 and 1999 grew faster among wealthier households than it did among poorer households. For example the household income for the 80th precentile, the lower threshold for the top quintile, rose from $55,265 in 1967 to $86,867 in 2003, a 57.2% increase. The median household income rose by 30% while the income for the 20th percentile (the lower threshold for the second lowest quitile) rose by only 28% from $14,002 to $17,984. One should note that ht majority of households in the top quintile had two income earners, versus zero for the lowest quintile and that the widening gap between the top and lowest quintile may largely be the reflection of changing household demographics including the addition of women to the workforce.
en.wikipedia.org...
But i also think that in every aspect of every day life, someone gets exploited somewhere and somehow.
But punishing everyone to try and make up for it isn't going to fix anything.
It's just going to make things worse.
Originally posted by Fremd
no, i do agree, and if you re-read my statement, i acknowledge that even CEO's can be worthless.
But that does not mean you pay a burger flipper - by law - more money.
If they are good, a business will pay them more.
If they don't get paid more, what happens?
THEY LEAVE and the business can't find anyone to work, and the business goes under.
Min. Wage is a bad idea....when you try and make it a law.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
To answer your question "what is the livable minimum wage" I would say on the East Coast it's $8.50/hr and on the west coast $11/hr. As a minimum wage, to get a basic apartment and feed your self, and perhaps a kid or two.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
Not the American Dream
Originally posted by Rockpuck
You have to think about this way..
When I first started college I managed security at a high-end condo facility.. I got paid $8.40/hr for third shift.
Now, this was considered a pretty good wage back then.. most people I knew strived for the $8+/hr jobs.. they where not as easy to come by, especially for no education.
Most of my friends made less then me, working at restaurants, or at stores, typically making around $5.50-$6.00/hr.
(Minimum wage was $5.15)
So they move minimum wage up.. to $6.00+ something (it changes every year now, up a few cents in Ohio). I remember we got a .05 cent raise because they felt that because people working at Taco Bell where now making nearly as much as we where, we needed a raise. Sadly, the actual real value of the raises people making over minimum wage did not reflect that which minimum wage workers got.
So now that minimum wage is nearing $7.00/hr, the average job that had a $8/hr wage might make $9 .. because the cost of keeping a business has soared so drastically,
and the cost to maintain employees has as well. The wage increase as percentage to wage increases of the "minimum" wages is not equal -- if the lowest earners get a $3/hr wage, and it's not reflected across the board,
then economics dictates that the price of goods (inflation) will reflect the largest earners wage increase.
Essentially... by increasing the minimum wage, you decreased the Real Wage value of "above minimum wage" earners, and effectively through inflation gave millions of people salary reductions.
Where is the incentive to work? .. I can go work at Taco Bell and get high in the back room while serving up some nacho's and get paid maybe $2 less an hour then someone working their ass off. And once taxes are considered, the difference really isn't even that $2 dollars.
Keep the government OUT of business.
DO NOT RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE EQUALITY!
Originally posted by Rockpuck
There should be no minimum wage. The Gov has no right to dictate how much people should be making---
especially over a the entire economy encompassing millions of jobs that are completely unrelated.