The Minimum Wage in One Paragraph

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Sorry forgot to give my source, here you go.

aseyeseesit.blogspot.com...




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I make 22$ an hr, and that is honestly just barely enough to make my bills, gasoline in my hand me down car to get to work, and mortgage on my dinky home (which is mainly just a couch, fridge, stove, washing machine, PC, Mattress, 2 litterboxes, and some cats.) lol

I am not on any kind of Government cheese. I pretty much eat 1 meal a day, and have coffee for breakfast.

I have been wearing the same clothes for like 7 years(luckily I get work shirts), cause I can't afford anything above and beyond my budget.

I don't know what the hell I am going to do if I ever need a new car. Probably have to break down, and finally ask for some sort of help, or find a wife/roommate LOL.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, but you can barely make it on double the minimum wage without some kind of Food-stamps or whatever. I honestly think it has been engineered to be like that. So they (government) keep us needing them.
edit on 27-2-2013 by PassiveObserver because: barely =/= barley



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
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....


Why? You may find it worth that, but if you ran a burger joint and met payroll, inventory, rent, etc.....do you still think it would be worth that? I am curious as to why you think it is worth that.


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...


Whoa....so the BLS is lying now? They compiled data and presented the numbers and it is false? Even a "Independent Democratic Conference" in NY only identified 5.6% of the NY population to be receiving "minimum wages" (though they say between $1-15000).

Can you link where you pulled your data please. Let us decide just as you were given the opportunity to with the OP in their data set, if it is "crap"...

ETA:
Statistics were pulled from the same place as the OP....the BLS.....Yours are valid but theirs is crap? One meets your narrative and the other doesn't? Am I getting warm here?
edit on 27-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Those numbers don't really work out when considering the cost of getting by,nevermind what a worker is worth as far as his or her wage goes.

I see a system in place which forces one into taking out a loan,or entering into what amounts to an unfair contract to get nearly anything one needs,or simply "wants".

Business is the problem,yeah,I can already hear the groans from you so called "successful types",and used to be one of you before I got sick of working like a slave,only to pay more and more for the things I needed as the years rolled by.

It wasn't always this way,I know because I have been here for some time,and never did like the necessity of strolling into some weenie's private dictatorship to earn the money I needed to get by.Fortunately I worked hard for a long time under some very fair and decent people.

Business works on quarterly cycles and you are forced to plan your entire life against a fickle way of doing business on the short term,it starts with the banks.

My 0.02 cents,and I don't claim to know much of anything.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Ya np, scroll up from your post on page 3. The op used cherry picked incomplete stats to give his slanted view more traction, I linked the full set of stats from the sams report.

Also, in this country gas costs $4 a gallon, milk is the same price almost, I will be damned if any work done isnt worth a minimum of the current minimum wage. Thats why.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Ya np, scroll up from your post on page 3. The op used cherry picked incomplete stats to give his slanted view more traction, I linked the full set of stats from the sams report.


Saw it but it wasn't pure data and even the source said it was inferred; they didn't even link to where they got it. Checking source data now which is the same data the OP used.


Also, in this country gas costs $4 a gallon, milk is the same price almost, I will be damned if any work done isnt worth a minimum of the current minimum wage. Thats why.


We aren't talking about that now are we? We are talking about minimum wage and who is receiving it. Which by all accounts largely sits in a population of the workforce who is either unskilled or just starting out. I won't deny the rise in costs on goods isn't effecting people; hell, I make $34+/hour and it effects me but again, that isn't the point here now is it?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Scroll to the bottom, it has a link right back to the BLS pdf, I just cant dl it on my phone, so I had to use the second hand source for ease of providing the info.

BTW you did ask how I thought that any work done in America was the minimum wage at least, I was simy explaining my reasoning. Given that if you dont pay people enough to buy goods or services our economy would implode of night, as there is reason the have a business when nobody can by your goods or services, this is the reason why it is more than right to pay at least minimum wage for any, and I do mean ANY work done, no matter what it is. I dont care if the job is the watch a lightbulb to see how long it takes to burn out, it is still worth minimum wage at least.
edit on 27-2-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
They could double it and it would make little difference. With the rate of inflation and the growing debt in this country most households are going to roommates and both spouses working just to make enough to keep up with the neighbors. A shift is coming my friends, Sooner rather than later I think.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
You do know what median means right? Denoting or relating to a value or quantity lying at the midpoint.... That means there are more below and more above. It isn't the average. Average does not equal median. I weep for this nation....

Median is the 50% point. It doesn't mean that the average of 103 million people are making $700/week.

Even your blog source states that higher wages exist in professional settings. I am confused on your argument here.
edit on 27-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 





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


Perhaps people cannot fathom my concept because they are too busy picking out details that have nothing to do with the premise and avoiding the actual topic of the thread which was clearing asked in the OP 3 times.




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....


That may be true, theoretically, I mean $7.25 isn't much huh? The problem is in the real world a business only has so much money to spend on employment. If they spend more than that they either have to fire people, go out of business or raise prices. Now with the prices raised that doesn't help people who just got their minimum wage bumped up huh? If they are fired, that doesn't help them either. If the company goes out of business, well, that doesn't help them either huh?

I understand that $7.25 isn't much but I have already provided you with the proof that less than 1% of full time employees make $7.25 so it doesn't look like employers have any disagreement with you.

What you are failing to realize or contently ignoring is that If a business isn't paying enough they won't have any employees and that employees are not forced to work for any employer.





Your premise is false, your statistics are crap,


you keep saying that yet you have not been able to supply one shred of evidence from any website in existence proving my statistics as false.




you fail to even consider the obviius fact that almost half of americas work force makes less than $19 an hour


what does that have to do with the minimum wage exactly?




with a significant percentage making close to minimum wage


Your data please? Sorry if I don't just take your word for it but you seem prone to both exaggeration and speculation so I would really like to see the hard data that you obviously are basing your opinion on.




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.


I have very little interest in stats, my interest is in facts. I have said multiple times in this very thread that it is obvious that these statistics can be interpreted in different ways. What can't be denied is that less than 1% of full time employees make minimum wage. This really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread though, as I said, I included the statistics because I found them interesting.

As far as your off site content, what exactly does that have to do with the topic of this thread.

Sorry you missed it, we are not discussing what a persons labor is worth, we are not discussing if being poor is hard. We are discussing if PERHAPS the minimum wage has unintended consequences that actually do more harm than good.

Perhaps you feel like you are so unskilled that without a minimum wage law, you would only be paid peanuts and would have to live in a tree. I believe in you more than that and apparently so do the businesses of america since
less than 1% of full time employees make minimum wage.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PassiveObserver
I make 22$ an hr, and that is honestly just barely enough to make my bills, gasoline in my hand me down car to get to work, and mortgage on my dinky home (which is mainly just a couch, fridge, stove, washing machine, PC, Mattress, 2 litterboxes, and some cats.) lol

I am not on any kind of Government cheese. I pretty much eat 1 meal a day, and have coffee for breakfast.

I have been wearing the same clothes for like 7 years(luckily I get work shirts), cause I can't afford anything above and beyond my budget.

I don't know what the hell I am going to do if I ever need a new car. Probably have to break down, and finally ask for some sort of help, or find a wife/roommate LOL.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, but you can barely make it on double the minimum wage without some kind of Food-stamps or whatever. I honestly think it has been engineered to be like that. So they (government) keep us needing them.
edit on 27-2-2013 by PassiveObserver because: barely =/= barley


You make a hell of a point, throw in 100k in student loans and someone making twice what you are making would be just treading water.

I honestly feel the same way. It has been planned to happen this way. In 1960 minimum wage was $1.60 and with that you could buy 1.4 grams of gold. That would be about $80 bucks today. When one thinks about it that way, it seems pretty hard not to say minimum wage is a joke (my opinion).

The real issue is cost of living being raised by monetary inflation. Minimum wage obviously does nothing to curb that. It is a feel good measure. I believe it does a lot of harm and that is why I started this thread.

Not that I am addressing this to you, but I think I should say, I am not trying to tell people what is a livable wage for them, I am just trying to discuss if the minimum wage laws have unintended consequences that do more harm than the intended good. I am not attacking poor people and I almost guarantee I am much more poor than anybody who has taken such offense to me attacking the minimum wage laws. I simply want us to have smart programs that work, not dumb programs that don't.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Scroll to the bottom, it has a link right back to the BLS pdf, I just cant dl it on my phone, so I had to use the second hand source for ease of providing the info.

BTW you did ask how I thought that any work done in America was the minimum wage at least, I was simy explaining my reasoning. Given that if you dont pay people enough to buy goods or services our economy would implode of night, as there is reason the have a business when nobody can by your goods or services, this is the reason why it is more than right to pay at least minimum wage for any, and I do mean ANY work done, no matter what it is. I dont care if the job is the watch a lightbulb to see how long it takes to burn out, it is still worth minimum wage at least.
edit on 27-2-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



You keep completely missing the point. We are not discussing what people are worth when employed. I actually think people are worth much more than $7.25 an hour. We are discussing (or at least I have been trying to discuss for over 6 hours without much luck) is if minimum wage laws have the unintended consequence of pricing unskilled workers out of the job market. Seeing how the minimum wage is supposed to help unskilled workers, not make them unemployable, I feel this is very important to consider. Nothing you have said has even touched on this, which is the main topic of the thread.

What are your thoughts on that? You don't even need to give me any links. Lets just see if you can actually respond with an on topic post.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
So,automation has cost many workers their jobs who once played a part in the production of goods which they can no longer afford to buy because they have been replaced by machines and streamlined business practices which eliminate jobs.

Yes?.

We Be Screwed,unles we somehow convince a bunch of suckers to invest in schemes and "stuff",and convince them that things will be better someday somehow.

It's about selling HOPE,and HOPE is in short supply,and not really the best business plan for anybody.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BadbrotherRyan
They could double it and it would make little difference. With the rate of inflation and the growing debt in this country most households are going to roommates and both spouses working just to make enough to keep up with the neighbors. A shift is coming my friends, Sooner rather than later I think.



I agree with you 100%. Thanks for chiming in with your 2 cents. My only counterpoint to your harmony would be it isn't coming, it is already here.
edit on 27-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The reason that most people make more than minimum wage isn`t because the employers are so generous it`s because no one will work for minimum wage. You make more and get better benefits by not working at all and getting government assistance than you do by working for minimum wage.
Your taking a pay cut by getting off government assistance and taking a minimum wage job



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 




Ah, heck with it, I'll respond. You are purely speculating. Can one person please base their argument off of a verifiable fact like I did in my OP.

Besides. This is not a thread about what burger king pays and their promotion program, this is a thread about if the minimum wage creates a barrier for unskilled, less than minimum wage skilled workers to gain higher wage skills on the job.

Does anybody want to speak to that, or is this just gonna be attack the facts with off topic speculation day?


Ok, I'll play. Here is a fact, I have over 10 years experience as a house painter. I can't make over $10/hour where I live working for anyone. I'm not up to the task of going and looking through financial statistics to support my claim that most jobs in the US don't pay well nowadays.

The places that have average higher incomes also have much higher costs of living, like NYC. That article you cited in the OP is just more of the same old "look here for a quick moment, everything is fine! Now don't think about what you just read, just believe it and go on to work at your miserable job and keep hoping it gets better".

YES WE CAN! (hope)


reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




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?


For one, theres no room for compassion in capitalism. Raising the minimum wage might be an option if the deficit hadn't gone up 60% in the last 4 years. It also might be an option if the middle class wasn't being eliminated.. but it is.

The fact is that minimum wage is to high! Thats why all the jobs are outsourced OR immigrants are brought in to work cheaper. The US had its day in the sun, unlimited credit for 30 years and now.. its.. gone. These comparisons of how people can't feasibly live on minimum wage are funny. Sure ya can! Just not easily..



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim
For one, theres no room for compassion in capitalism. Raising the minimum wage might be an option if the deficit hadn't gone up 60% in the last 4 years. It also might be an option if the middle class wasn't being eliminated.. but it is.


I didn't argue capitalism. The question was, if the Government, in its capacity has shown via legislation, has the ability to arbitrarily choose what private companies can pay (which by the way is furthest from Capitalism as can be) what they wish, why stop at $9.00?



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
OK I can't hold back any more. Friend of mine gave his dissertation on minimum wage logic on another forum and I have to share it. Bottom line is, legislated minimum wages don't work and his explanation is as good as I've seen (and washes with the economics community because he's one of them). Here goes:

If a minimum wage has ANY effect on ANY economy it is ALWAYS bad. Always. A first year economics student learns this fact in some of his or her beginning classes; it`s not debatable, it`s not a Republican or Democrat issue, it`s not a fairness or standard of living issue. Like the 2nd law of thermodynamics or energy decreasing with the inverse of distance it is a simple and unbeatable mathmatical law of economics. You never get something for nothing, and you can never make something out of nothing.

Here is how it works--a leglistated wage of any kind, if it has any effect on a labor market, will ALWAYS throw a disporportionate amount of people out of work compared to the standard of living increase for those still working. Even IF you could ignore the moral hazard toward those now on the dole, and even IF you could transfer ALL of the money from the marginal increase of the standard of living of those still working (you can`t) to those thrown out of work you will still lose the work lost by introducing via law an inefficiency into a market.

Wanna see how ? Grab a sheet of paper and try this:

Draw a horizontal and vertical axis--just like you did in high school when you were drawing graphs and lines. Put wage rate ($) on the vertical axis, and labor quantity (units of work--Q) on the horizontal axis. Give youself some room to work.

Now draw a reatively large and flat "U" shaped curve near the middle of the graph. Make your `U` so it has a fairly shallow slope on both ends (decreasing and increasing) so you have some room to work with--kind of like a bowl would look like if you took a cross section.

Guess what--you just drew a supply and demand curve for most labor markets. You have decreasing costs on the left side (due to startup costs where fixed costs dominate) and increasing costs on the right (where the supply of your labor resources increases at an increasing rate). If you think about this it makes sense--you see costs drop as you get started, and as you have to work more and more each hour becomes more expensive as supply dries up. U shaped curves are pretty much standard for most operating markets (there are some exceptions in special cases but not this one).

Different labor markets have different variations of this (and they are at higher and lower costs in the vertical) but they all share the same characteristics. An experienced pilot, for example, might have this U-shaped curve at a higher vertical position than a beginning cashier and these curves are specific for each labor market, but they all have the same basic characteristics.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Now we get to the fun part. Note the bottom of the curve. Draw a horizontal line parallel to the horizontal axis which is tangent (touches) the bottom of the U-shaped curve. Take it over to the left to the $ -- this is the point at which the labor market equilibrates and the point of maximum efficiency. If we do NOTHING this is the wage rate where the market operates and equilibrates--and NOTHING is exactly what we should do. But the statist can`t live without meddling, so let`s meddle a bit and set a minimum wage. Just for reference, draw a vertical line (parallel to the vertical axis) running through the very bottom of the U-shaped curve and note where the Q is. We`ll use this later.

Draw a horizontal line BELOW and parallel to the horizontal one you just drew for the equilibrium line. This is what happens when we set, by law, a minimum wage below where the labor market naturally equilibrates. When our economy was functional 95% of our labor markets looked exactly like the one you just drew--the minimum wage has no effect whatsoever (which is the BEST thing that can happen) because the market naturally equilibrates higher. By our job destroying actions we have (due to labor oversupply) dropped this number probably closer to 80 to 85%--and maybe even lower. But you get the idea.

Now let`s see how a minimum wage hurts markets. Draw a line parallel to the horizontal axis but ABOVE the horizontal line you first drew--make this well above it and the bottom of the U-shaped curve so you can see what you have done. Note on the $ axis this is well above where the market naturally operates.

Look at where the line you just drew intersects the U-shaped curve on the way down on the left side--this is where your market is now operating (because your minimum wage rate is now above where the market would naturally equilibrate). Draw a vertical line straight down from where your horizontal line intersects the U-shaped curve (parallel to the vertical axis). Note where it now is on the horizontal axis (the Q axis which represents labor unit quantity--jobs). This Q will be much less than the Q represented by the first vertical line you drew (the vertical line going through the bottom of the U-shaped curve). Look at the difference between them on the horizontal axis. THESE ARE THE JOBS LOST !!! (or the amount of people underemployed).

What happens to these people ? Well, they are thrown out on the dole. Being the statist you are, you come up with the bright idea you can tax those now working and distribute this money to these people out of work (or give them WIC). If you look at your curves you would notice you could tax those now working at the higher wage and give it to those Qs now out of work. But not only does this defeat the original purpose of those now working at the higher minimum wage (they make money only to have it taken away in taxes--in fact this is one of the reasons most of us working stiffs get screwed ANYTIME there is ANY tax hike of any kind) but also you lose money because, like friction, it is impossible to move money with 100% efficiency. So we have to give maybe 30% of this to bureaucrats to even get it over to those now out of work or underemployed--and everyone is worse off. Even the bureaucrats who are not doing anything productive--simply helping us deal wth a self-induced mess we just set up with our own law that shouldn`t be there.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
We ALSO get the moral hazard of those now working and those not--why should those working continue to work to see their money taken away and given to those on the dole ? Black markets form where folks now work illegally (which actually are a postive effect economically), and we then devote resources to arrest, prosecute, jail, and defend them (which is even MORE money down the drain). This also encourages illegal immigration, etc--especially because we usually don`t deal with only the damage by our minimum wage but also the other federal mandates which needlessly hike labor costs.

We`re not done with our destruction, though. Look at the area under the curve bounded by your two vertical lines and the middle and upper horizontal lines. THIS IS THE NET WORK LOST--which is wholly unrecoverable in every way (the mathematical product of price X quantity of a labor market which is work). Like setting money afire our law has just burned up this work and it is gone forever and cannot be saved--all because of a stupid law. This also doesn`t include the non tangibles of HAVING a job--learning to work, show up on time, the pride of working, etc--which are the perfect characteristics for starting jobs for kids still living with their parents. Instead we so kill jobs that experienced adults and college grads are working at minimum wage jobs and kids are unemployed and not learning trade skills.

Other federal mandates do similar things by artifically hiking labor costs (obamacare, forced benefits, regulations, NLRB decisions, lawsuits, etc.) -- and this is what we have done to ourselves. THIS is why we have record numbers falling into the poverty level, and THIS is why we have record numbers unemployed/underemployed and on food stamps. By killing jobs and forcing labor oversupply -- as well as adding burdensome non-value added collateral costs to everything--people fall into poverty. In fact, we have so overburdened our economy by punishing workers, punishing markets, and promising and distributing entitlements (which act like drugs and chains to a population) that we are completely unable to meet even the short term cash obligations without borrowing great sums of money--over 50% of our cash flow--as well as destroying currency, work, and capital by printing money on top of this.

If we leave market forces alone not only do these markets function at the optimal efficiency, but begin to shift upward as labor supply starts becoming more scarce (the U-shaped curves are dynamic as well as specifc to markets). This results in a better standard of living for everyone WITHOUT any government help or mandates (it ALSO can result in a little inflation if productivity gains do not happen--fortunately the two are usually synergistic). So what we want is the market to NATURALLY equilibrate--without interference--and naturally increase our standard of living. By artifically meddling with it we ALWAYS cause this not to happen.

Obama`s speech was to INCREASE the minimum wage--which will INCREASE job losses, INCREASE economic inefficiency, and INCREASE the damage we are doing with our own laws--while at the same time throwing more people out of work and making them dependent on unemployment, food stamps, welfare, and other state entities. I would certainly have expected this, but it is important to know WHY what we are seeing is happening--I hope this little ditty in some way accomplishes this.

NONE of this is new; Cicero codified it in 50 BC. Adam Smith put it into perspective (our Constitution being largely written based on this and John Locke`s -- as well as others` -- phlosophies). Milton Friedman and Art Laffer also put this much better than I ever could.

Point being if ANYONE in a position of public policy is advocating a minimum wage or INCREASING the minimum wage they should be no where near the public sector. We don`t NEED OR WANT a minimum wage--it always causes harm.

The dirtly little secret statists will not tell you is you don`t NEED their help or protection in the form of a minimum wage--or much else. Labor is a resource like any other and in a free market companies are forced to COMPETE for your talent. Statists would like to buffalo you into believing that without their help the evil corporations would screw you; nothing could be further from the truth. In an open market corporations HAVE TO pay you what you are worth--because they compete for your labor and productivity (and skill level). Labor in all its forms is a finite resource and a huge investment to a company--if they want to succeed they will have a well paid, well taken care of, and well skilled labor force (and developing and training this force as a long term investment is all part of the picture). A company which mistreats its employees in an open market fails because the employees vote with their feet and go elsewhere--and companies know this. The thing an `evil` corporation FEARS THE MOST is an open market. Unfortunately because of our corruption corporations team up with crooked politicians and pass protectionist legislation which favors THEM--and this crony `capitalism` cuts out the competition and results in wages falling into the minimum wage. The best defense toward a decent wage is a free and open market.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join