The Minimum Wage in One Paragraph

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Part time workers are frankly irrelevant to the discussion.

How many people do you think are getting paid mere pennies over minimum wage? Enough to really make these percentages look wrong? I doubt it but I welcome you to actually find some data that supports your opinion rather than simply speculating and implying the authors of the linked story are liars without supplying a shred of evidence for your assertions.



edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


I don't feel sorry for your friend at all. It sounds like these are all personal choices they have made and I would venture to guess that they are happy with their decisions or they would be doing something to change it.

I think you make a really good point about your grandfather. I would venture to guess that has something to do with monetary inflation. also a good point you make about the materialism I think.

When I moved out of my parent house, I had 3 roomates, we all made minimum wage which was $5.xx something at the time. We had no cable (though I did buy an antenna) no home phone, no heat no ac. Life is hard. Being poor sucks. If I thought the minimum wage would help at all I would be all for it. The facts I find simply say otherwise though I admit it is counter-intuitive to those who only look skin deep into the topic.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


I did no speculating. I just stated that there are very few conclusions that can be drawn from that data. Also why are part time people irrelevant to the discussion?

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis


On the surface, this is a solid showing, and 100% certain to boost the Obama campaign. I suggest these numbers will overshadow a horrendously weak performance by the president in the debate.

That said, a closer look shows the entire drop in the unemployment rate can be attributed to a surprise rise of 582,000 in part-time workers. U-6 unemployment remained at 14.7%. U-6 includes part-time workers who want a full-time job. Read more at globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...


Part time workers are hardly irrelevant to the discussion since many of the new jobs being created are part time jobs.

Washington Post


The NELP report finds that mid-wage jobs, paying between $13.83 and $21.13 per hour, made up about 60 percent of the jobs lost during the recession. But those mid-wage jobs have made up just 27 percent of the jobs gained during the recovery to date. By contrast, low-paying jobs have constituted roughly 58 percent of the jobs gained since 2010:


Again the statistics mentioned in your OP don't describe squat except that most FULL TIME Americans aren't making EXACTLY the minimum wage. THAT. IS. ALL. IT. SAYS.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
If anyone has 48 seconds to spare, this might help explain what this thread is about a little better.



I am trying to discuss how raising the minimum wage lowers the overall available jobs and how the minimum wage is irrelevant to almost everyone, statistically so increasing it isn't a serious answer to people with low incomes. But it is harmful to people trying to break into the job market in the first place.

Are proponents of the minimum wage simply unable to fathom how increasing minimum wage decreases the available jobs in the market or may price out people entirely who are not skilled enough to command a higher wage.

I am not anti poor (I am in fact poor, probably much poorer than you are) I am not saying the statistics are without interpretation. Though I would like people with an alternate interpretation or a counter point to actually go through to trouble of qualifying their opinion, which honestly is expected on this website rather than simply speculate and trash without bothering to verify.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I don't really have any interest in arguing with you about if you are speculating but why not. It is pretty obvious that when one criticize facts without supplying any facts of their own, they are speculating.

Speculation : a guess, a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence




The people in this article are interpreting these statistics to make the situation not as dire as it seems.


This is a speculation. If it is not please present your evidence.




In fact you really can't draw many conclusions at all from this data besides obviously biased ones.


This is a speculation. If it is not please present your proof that only biased conclusions can be reached from the data supplied from the BLS.




If you really wanted to make a point, how about posting some statistics for part time workers or wages between min wage and say $10?


This is actually your job. I am making the assertion from the data supplied from the BLS that less than 1% of all full time employees are being paid minimum wage. I don't have any data on what percentage of people make between minimum wage and $10 dollars an hour as i don't say how high when you ask me to jump. You raised the counter to my argument that YOU believe these statistic are flawed for that reason, it is YOUR job to prove your speculation, not mine.

Part time employees are irrelevant to the discussion 1) because we are talking about Full Time employees working 40 or more hours a week at one or more job and that is what the statistics at the Bureau of Labor Statistics are supplying and 2) and this is purely speculation on my part but I could care less about helping an impoverished person who is only willing to work part time hours. With so many part time jobs out there it would seem logical that one could work two part time jobs to make it to full time hours.

Do you understand. If you have criticism of the data I supplied it is your job to prove you are right, not mine. I happen to think you are speculating based on YOUR biases. Unless you have some way of verifying your opinion, which is expected at this site, it is only an opinion, guess or as I said speculation. Speculating is fine but it makes for a poor argument when you can't verify anything you say.

We can share our opinions back and forth all day, I am not interested in spinning my wheels though, I am interested in discussing facts about the hidden problems that may be associated with the minimum wage.




Again the statistics mentioned in your OP don't describe squat except that most FULL TIME Americans aren't making EXACTLY the minimum wage. THAT. IS. ALL. IT. SAYS.


Yes and I asked you if you think a large percentage of people are making only pennies above minimum wage. That doesn't make much sense to me but you seem to beleive it is true so I would love to see your data, that is if you actually HAVE ANY. You are welcome to dispute my submitted stats as much as you want but unless you can find some data to prove your speculation your dispute MEANS NOTHING.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
How come there is no "maximum wage"? And, why do people settle for MINIMUM? Is your time only worth a few dollars an hour??? That's pretty SAD!



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


I like how you completely skipped over my two articles and failed to read them then continue to tell me I didn't provide any proof. One of the articles addresses why part time employees are relevant to the discussion. You obviously aren't looking for a real discussion and only for people to agree with you, so I'm done here. Have fun with your thread.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





I like how you completely skipped over my two articles and failed to read them then continue to tell me I didn't provide any proof. One of the articles addresses why part time employees are relevant to the discussion. You obviously aren't looking for a real discussion and only for people to agree with you, so I'm done here. Have fun with your thread.


Dude, I explained to you why part time employees are irrelevant to MY thread. If you want to talk about part time employees go make your own. I am happy to see you go, personally as all you have done is attempt to derail my thread with speculation and off topic replies. Good riddance.

Believe it or not I am a nice guy and would love to have a discussion about THE TOPIC. I have not had one on topic post in 3 1/2 hours. I have simply had to explain to you and many other people what speculation is and what the actual TOPIC of this thread is, which is POSSIBLE hidden dangers resulting from minimum wage laws. Not the minimum wage in general or how statistics can be interpreted in different ways.

I'm not a thread nazi and I will discuss other things loosely related to the topic but is it too much to ask that you actually qualify your opinion with some sort of verifiable fact? I went to your links they said nothing about if the articles in my OP were bias or about what percentage of people make between minimum wage and $10 an hour. They did talk about increases in part time jobs, which I DID take the time to try and explain to you why I think it is irrelevant to my thread which is talking about FULL TIME WORKERS.

I am more than happy to talk about data that is about Part time workers but I don't really care to go looking for it just so I can have an argument with somebody who won't even bother discussing the actual TOPIC of my thread.

You go get the part time data and I'll discuss it with you as much as you want, even though it has nothing to do with my thread or my threads topic. I'm just nice like that.




You obviously aren't looking for a real discussion and only for people to agree with you


I have replied to every single person that has disagreed with me, I have replied to nobody that has agreed Yeah, that makes sense, I only want to talk to people who agree with me. People who have disagreed with me I have asked them to simply find some shred of evidence somewhere on the internet that backs up their opinion. Your right, what a jerk I am.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 


Your missing the point. Here it is:

The minimum wage is irrelevant to almost everyone(that point you got), so increasing it isn't a serious answer to people with low incomes, but it is harmful to people trying to break into the job market in the first place whom currently don't have any income and a lack of skills that may not be worth the minimum wage to an employer.

That is what I am trying to discuss here.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


I think that is also wrong. If $7 a shift keeps you from hiring someone then you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. The reason that teens are not getting these jobs is because much more qualified workers are available, namely seniors, who quickly learn the ropes and move up from that wage a bit.

There ain't enough jobs and those that do exist do not pay enough.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
 






If $7 a shift keeps you from hiring someone then you probably shouldn't be in business in the first place.


I am not sure where this logic comes from(not saying you aren't logical, only that I don't get it).

This is how I see it.

Lets say the minimum wage is $10 an hour. I want to hire two people as that is the amount of work available I think I have but I can only afford 1 employee for $10 an hour.

So instead of hiring 2 people willing to work at $5 an hour (the only people willing to work that wage would obviously be people without many skills or a bad work history) I have to find an employee who I think has the skills to do the work of 2 lesser skilled people.

So not only am I now ONLY looking for a person who is HIGHLY skilled, one less person will also be getting a job.

I certainly wouldn't force anyone to work at $5 an hour but I would take the bet that 2 people exist in the area that may be willing to work for $5 an hour as they would be building work history, gaining work skills, earning money even if it isn't much and can put themselves in a better position to compete for a higher paying job or have their foot in the door for a future promotion.

So what I am saying is that the minimum wage has stopped me from hiring unskilled workers because I only can afford to pay skilled workers that amount. Now minimum wage laws are supposed to help the unskilled workers but all it has done in this example is help them to not get a job where an employer would have been willing to take a chance on them.




The reason that teens are not getting these jobs is because much more qualified workers are available, namely seniors, who quickly learn the ropes and move up from that wage a bit.


This is exactly what I am saying and you proved my point though I don't think you realized it. Businesses have two choices hire a skilled worker (senior) with great work history for $7 an hour or hire the unskilled worker (teen) without a great work history for $7 an hour. Obviously unless the senior is unable to do the job, they are going to get it whereas if I could pay $5 an hour I might just take the chance on that teen.

The minimum wage laws are supposed to help the unskilled worker but it is simply pricing unskilled workers out of the job market as skilled workers exist that will take the same wage. This makes it harder for the unskilled to gain skills that would eventually lead to a lifetime of higher wages.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
You realize that the last large jump in minimum wage was in July 2008, nothing bad financially or economically happened that year going into 2009 and still continuing today did it?


no no
nothing major happened.
nothing at all.

2008-2009 was good times.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


I would have thought most people could taste the sarcasm dripping in those words.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Minimum wages have to be raised to keep up with the cost of living, everything gets more expensive. I agree that companies probably don't want to hire unexperienced workers at $7.xx/hr, when they can most likely get someone who is over qualified or someone with experience. I remember my first job at Petco, 16 yrs old making $5.75/hr, and I have never worked harder. It's funny how the more money you make, the less you work.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


well most people are dumb.

thats why i quoted your post and added some more sarcasm.

from what part of the oh10 do you hail from???



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sbc650mike
 





Minimum wages have to be raised to keep up with the cost of living


You say that as if it is an undeniable truth. Wages rely on competition right? If a business wants the best employee they have to have the most attractive job, they are in competition with every other business for that best employee. That attractive job would consist of pay that the person can live on. If cost of living increases and the persons wage does not, they will quickly find they need more money and look for another job or ask for a raise.

If a business decide's they will pay less than the actual cost of living they will find their employees will soon find employment elsewhere no?




I agree that companies probably don't want to hire unexperienced workers at $7.xx/hr, when they can most likely get someone who is over qualified or someone with experience.


Exactly, a business is always going to hire the most skilled person at the lowest wage they can get away with that person accepting. It is simply business. That is what I am trying to explain in this thread. The minimum wage is supposed to help the unskilled worker but in effect it prices the unskilled worker out of the job market.




I remember my first job at Petco, 16 yrs old making $5.75/hr, and I have never worked harder. It's funny how the more money you make, the less you work.



Yeah, in a way I can agree with that. I think most people as they age trade physical labor for responsibility. The closer to the top you get, the less physically hard you work but more stress/responsibility goes along with that. In general.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by sbc650mike
 





Minimum wages have to be raised to keep up with the cost of living


You say that as if it is an undeniable truth. Wages rely on competition right? If a business wants the best employee they have to have the most attractive job, they are in competition with every other business for that best employee.That attractive job would consist of pay that the person can live on. If cost of living increases and the persons wage does not, they will quickly find they need more money and look for another job or ask for a raise.

If a business decide's they will pay less than the actual cost of living they will find their employees will soon find employment elsewhere no?


Wrong this would be the case if we were in a period of full employment. The current state of affairs encourage less paid in wages and benefits, due to the large number of unemployed and underemployed.


Exactly, a business is always going to hire the most skilled person at the lowest wage they can get away with that person accepting. It is simply business. That is what I am trying to explain in this thread. The minimum wage is supposed to help the unskilled worker but in effect it prices the unskilled worker out of the job market.


This is partially true. The last thing a business owner wants to do is hire an employee. The whole point of minimum wage from its inception is to provide a minimum standard of living. this means a modest dwelling, food to eat and a modest amount of discretionary spending. The discretionary spending being the most crucial factor as that is what actually drives the economy.

The whole point of the article you posted was flawed from the start. It fails to include part-time labor and any other point of reference than the minimum wage. Most of the new jobs being created are part-time positions and not paying a vastly larger minimum wage. What full-time employees are making would a relevant topic if there were a glut of full-time positions that needed to be filled. What you posted here is little more than spin dressed up with real but incomplete statistics. They are also incomplete because they are not factoring in what the previous percentage of full time employees was, how many of those positions were lost and how many of them are being replaced with part-positions. It is like taking a picture throwing mud on 75% of it and talking about how pretty the remaining 25% is.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Why is everyone so hung up on including part time labor? and the statistics? They are really just a small part of this post and have nothing really to do with the topic.

The topic is "possible hidden dangers resulting from minimum wage laws". The stats are really only in there because I thought it was interesting so I included it.

You quote me and say I am partially telling the truth but then you haven't said what I said that was false?




The whole point of minimum wage from its inception is to provide a minimum standard of living.


Sure, that may be the point but is it working? What I am trying to discuss is the actual results of the minimum wage laws and how some of that has backfired from the intended results by pricing the unskilled workers it is intended to help out of the job market.





Wrong this would be the case if we were in a period of full employment. The current state of affairs encourage less paid in wages and benefits, due to the large number of unemployed and underemployed.


Sure, obviously. Nobody is disputing that unemployment has created an employers job market. That doesn't make what I said wrong, it only means that we are living in a time of abnormality. Obviously the minimum wage being raised will do nothing to lower unemployment and as I have been trying to explain would actually create more unemployment for the unskilled workers the minimum wage law is intended to help, so I am not sure what your point is unless you feel like high unemployment will be the new norm for generations to come.

ETA: Actually, come to think of it, the unemployment rate has nothing to do with it. Business will still want the best available employee and employees still will go to the job with the most competitive wage. Unemployment rate has nothing to do with that except the overall highest wages. Wages may be less because it is an employers job market but it doesn't change the premise that I spoke of. Not in my mind at least, maybe you could speak to that a bit.




The whole point of the article you posted was flawed from the start. It fails to include part-time labor and any other point of reference than the minimum wage. Most of the new jobs being created are part-time positions and not paying a vastly larger minimum wage.


Your missing the point of the article, that is why you think it is flawed. I agree that MAYBE raising the minimum wage would maybe help some part time workers (if they weren't fired because the company couldn't afford to keep them on) but that isn't the point, the point is that less than 1% of full time workers make minimum wage. We are talking about full time workers. Full time workers make up the large majority of the workforce. Most people that are employed are full time, so the premise is, raising the minimum wage increases the wage of less than 1% of people working full time but creates a barrier for unskilled workers that won't be hired when a skilled worker can fill their spot for the same price.

I don't have any statistics on part time employees. Ask The BLS if you want to talk about part time employees, I can't find any thing similar on the topic. Part timers are really irrelevant to the discussion and in my opinion it keeps getting brought up to attack the stats and avoid the actual topic of this thread. We are talking about FULL TIME EMPLOYEES. I don't mind talking about part time employees too but I have already mentioned a few times I don't have any stats on them and can't find any that are of the same topic as the ones I have provided for full time employees.

edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim
What a crock.. I have known plenty of people who after working with companies for a year getting a 25 cent raise. 3 years with Burger King and they MIGHT bump your hourly pay up a whole dollar.

and that was more like 5 paragraphs..


Its a fast-food restaurant....what do you want? Do you see the skill level involved? Heck, half the cashiers can't make change unless their computer tells them to and you think they deserve more money in exchange for that type of labor? It is crass I know, but skills in demand have no problem achieving wages that are sustainable. Being flexible and having a wide ability of skill allows you to bargain for better exchange rate of that labor. It isn't rocket science.

Are there flaws? Absolutely but that is for another thread. Here we are discussing jobs that are entry-level, little to no skill involved and people expect them to make some fanciful living off them; when already shown by the OP that the large majority of these jobs are held by people between the ages of 16-24 and are single.

I ask you this Neph....if the Government, by mere legislation can force a business to hire at a minimum standard, why stop at such a "low" amount? Just make it $50/hour and be done with it. It would be the compassionate thing to do right?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Holy crap! thank you so much. I've been dying here fighting off the nonsense all by myself. Why is it so hard to get someone to actually address the topic of the thread. I might add you do a bit better job of it as well. Thanks for putting in your two cents.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


Op, I think the problem your running into is this. Nobody can even fathom the concept your trying to sell, as it is ignorant.

There is not one job that needs doing on this entire continent, that isnt worth $7.25 an hour minimum. Flipping burgers is worth 7.25 at least, emptying the garbage same thing etc....

Your premise is false, your statistics are crap, you fail to even consider the obviius fact that almost half of americas work force makes less than $19 an hour, with a significant percentage making close to minimum wage, but since your only interested in stats, here are some that are actually worth using, since they factor relevant data, not just talking points for the president.

DAT

DATA DRIVEN VIEW POINT:  There are 103.6 million full-time workers in America, half of whom make $758 per week or less before income taxes and other payroll deductions.  These employees work a minimum of 35 hours per week, but may be working more than 40 hours per week as this income includes tip, commissions and overtime. It doesn't include employer benefits.  All self-employed persons are excluded. If the average hours worked per week is between 40 and 50 hours, the median hourly wage would be between $15 and $19 dollars per hour (with any overtime pay included). Again, that means that almost half of all full-time employees make less than $15 to $19 dollars per hour.  By inference, this means a great many full-time employees are making close to minimum wage. Also of note is the significant wage disparity between men and woman, especially among White and Asian women. 





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join