The Minimum Wage in One Paragraph

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
This specifically states, "full-time workers." You'd be right, people working full-time often do earn more than minimum wage, even if they are working retail or some similar low-skill job. Where things go awry, however, is when part-time workers come into the mix; large scale employers (retailers, fast food chains, etc) intentionally cut down the hours of many employees to categorize them under part-time. What does this mean? It means they don't have to provide these workers with insurances, saving them more money. These workers, then, are often forced to work several jobs, often without any benefits.




posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by bgold1212
 


His numbers are not skewed or factually incorrect. They are however used in an incomplete picture and used with the intent of misleading the reader. The fact of it is the number of full time positions is and has been shrinking for an extended period in favor of part-time and in many cases temporary employment. Which is why he keeps saying "no no don't talk about part -time employment or under employment" because he knows it is little more than a misleading farce.


You know, if you weren't a complete stranger, I would be offended. I never said "no no don't talk about part -time employment or under employment"

If you bothered reading my replies on this thread, you would of seen that I actually said to you and others that I simply don't have part time data. Be my guest, supply some for us so we can discuss it. That would be a much more respectable thing to do, you know, instead of calling a complete stranger a liar, spin artist and everything else you have been implying.

One more time for you... I don't have any part time data. I have looked for it. I have not found any. Please supply some or shut the heck up about it. I will talk about part time people as much as you want and I have offered to numerous times. Perhaps you spend your time insulting me and others because you have no real argument, you have no idea what you are talking about and you refuse to accept facts. Thanks for all the insults, not sure why I am even bothering with such a person.

Anyhow, Part time workers have nothing to do with the topic, the topic is possible hidden problems with the minimum wage laws that may be doing more harm than good. Would you mind addressing the topic once?
edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 





This specifically states, "full-time workers." You'd be right, people working full-time often do earn more than minimum wage, even if they are working retail or some similar low-skill job. Where things go awry, however, is when part-time workers come into the mix; large scale employers (retailers, fast food chains, etc) intentionally cut down the hours of many employees to categorize them under part-time. What does this mean? It means they don't have to provide these workers with insurances, saving them more money. These workers, then, are often forced to work several jobs, often without any benefits


Good for them. Do you have anything to discuss that deals with the topic of the thread? In case you missed it, the topic is potential hidden problems with the minimum wage, not the plight of part time workers. Sorry to be crass but I am getting a bit tired of all the off topic posts.
edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Good for you. The only problem is my numbers exist in the real world, whereas their numbers exist only in their mind.

I love how you attack the numbers provided by the bureau of labor statistics yet provide absolutely zero evidence to show how they are "fudged".

Yep, just call me a propagandist, provide zero evidence and take off. What a wonderful person you must be to treat people like that.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





About 11 percent of part-time workers (persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 2 percent of full-time workers. (See table 1 and table 9.)


So 11% of part time workers make minimum wage. WOW! that is so many people!

Oh and 4.7% of the work force... that is so much! no wonder I wasn't talking about part time workers. The propagandist that I am. Your right, I am just cherry picking data.

The topic I have been trying to discuss and that you and everyone else is contently ignoring is that when the minimum wage is raised it prices low skill workers out of the job market. The data represents that, not the crap that you and others want to talk about. This thread isn't about how many people may get a raise if the minimum wage is increased, or the plight of part time workers, it is about how many low skill workers find that they can't get a job when the minimum wage is raised.

When you realize what the topic actually is, you might just realize that the data seems "cherry picked" because it represents a different argument than the one you are attacking.


edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 





What I don't understand is how raising the minimum wage creates a barrier for workers to get into skilled trades. Would someone explain how that works? Seriously, I'm not making that connection.


It goes a little something like this.

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by daskakik
 

Oh and 4.7% of the work force... that is so much! no wonder I wasn't talking about part time workers. The propagandist that I am. Your right, I am just cherry picking data.

It is almost 10 million people. But the real number as shown by my calculations is closer to 42 million workers. I guess 1 worker being affected is a tragedy but 42 million is just a statistic.

The person cherry picking would be the author of the article you posted. You just fell for it.


When you realize what the topic actually is, you might just realize that the data seems "cherry picked" because it represents a different argument than the one you are attacking.

My whole point is that keeping the conversation to the narrow breadth that you keep insisting upon misses the larger and complete picture.

The whole point of the piece you based the OP on is that a change in minimum wage would affect very few. I think it has been shown that that is simply not true and 4.7% is almost 8 times greater than the .6% cherry picked in the piece you posted.

edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


ok cut everyones wages in half, do you honestly think that employers will hire twice the people? maybe some will but the majority of corporations will see this as an opportunity to to make even more insanely huge profits!!!

i say companies and employers should offer some sort of profit sharing w their employees that way they are not hogging all the profits to themselves while the rest of america has to survive off the peanuts they throw at us.the company you work for does well, you do well as simple as that.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





My whole point is that keeping the conversation to the narrow breadth that you keep insisting upon misses the larger and complete picture.


Keeping the conversation to the narrow breadth... lol. That is too much. Not one detractor to my OP, in 5 pages of comments has even addressed the actual topic of my thread. Now you are saying that me actually asking people to discuss the topic of my thread misses the point.

Now I have heard it all.




The person cherry picking would be the author of the article you posted. You just fell for it.


Oh, so I'm not a liar, just gullible, got it. Cool.

I didn't fall for anything, I have said multiple times in this thread that the statistics can be interpreted in different ways. I actually assume people are smart enough to realize that when something says Full Time Employees it is obvious that it is not talking about all employees. Then all these really "smart" people come along and call me a propagandist because I don't explain something that is self evident. How smart of them to point out something that is obvious to everybody that looks at it.

The point of that stat was that less than 1% of all full time workers make minimum wage. Do you not feel it is self evident that it doesn't take into account part time workers or workers that make just above minimum wage? How lucky we are to have so many people point out the obvious. lol.




The whole point of the piece you based the OP on is that a change in minimum wage would affect very few. I think it has been shown that that is simply not true and 4.7% is almost 8 times greater than the .6% cherry picked in the piece you posted.


No, the whole point of the piece I based the OP on is that many Americans earn $0.00 per hour and live in poverty, because of the minimum wage law and it's effects on keeping unskilled workers priced out of the job market. The other stuff that you and others can't get over is simply back story and frankly irrelevant to the main point. You know, the same topic of this thread that you and other detractors refuse to talk about.

Why is it so hard for one detractor to actually address the topic of this thread?

edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Keeping the conversation the narrow breadth... lol. That is too much. Not one person, who has reacted negatively to my OP, in 5 pages of comments has even addressed the actual topic of my thread. Now you are saying that me actually asking people to discuss the topic of my thread misses the point.

Your OP is based on a faulty premise. Do you expect people to not point that out?




Oh, so I'm not a liar, just gullible, got it. Cool.

I didn't fall for anything, I have said multiple times in this thread that the statistics can be interpreted in different ways. I actually assume people are smart enough to realize that when something says Full Time Employees it is obvious that it is not talking about all employees. Then all these really "smart" people come along and call me a propagandist because I don't explain something that is self evident. How smart of them to point out something that is obvious to everybody that looks at it.

It isn't a matter of interpretation, it is a lie by omission.


No, the whole point of the piece I based the OP on is that many Americans earn $0.00 per hour and live in poverty, because of the minimum wage law and it's effects on keeping unskilled workers priced out of the job market. the other stuff that you and others can't get over is simply back story and frankly irrelevant to the main point. You know, the same topic of this thread that you and other detractors refuse to talk about.

Why is it so hard for someone to actually address the topic of this thread.


Bottom Line: The notion that there are millions of full-time workers struggling to raise a family, but are stuck in jobs paying the minimum wage for long periods of time is more myth than fact.


That is the bottom line taken from the piece you posted. He based that on:

In 2011, there were 112,564,000 Americans working full-time, and 111,821,000 of those workers, or 99.4%, were earning more than the minimum wage. Only 743,000 of those full-time workers were earning the minimum wage (or less), or 0.66% of the full-time workforce.


Conclusions formulated on incomplete data. That is the topic?

The full information from BLS shows that there are millions of full time minimum wage workers so that the piece you based the OP on is BS. Why would that not be pertinent to the discussion? Building a discussion upon something incorrect is a waste of time.

edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 





ok cut everyones wages in half, do you honestly think that employers will hire twice the people?


No and I haven't said that. You are extrapolating from an example I gave explaining how low skilled workers can be priced out of the job market.

I wouldn't want to cut anyone's wages in half. I just want people whom employers may feel aren't worth minimum wage to have a chance of landing a job and learning the skills that will help them command a higher wage in the future.




maybe some will but the majority of corporations will see this as an opportunity to to make even more insanely huge profits!!!


Maybe some corporations would see repeal of minimum wage laws as an opportunity to gouge their employees but they would soon find themselves out of business as their employees found new jobs. Companies cannot attract employees without offering a wage that an employee feels is fair. How long would you work somewhere that wasn't paying you enough? Would you accept a job that doesn't offer to pay you what you are worth?

Companies can't just pay employees whatever tiny amount they would like to, minimum wage or no minimum wage, people will only work for a wage that makes it worth their time to do so.




i say companies and employers should offer some sort of profit sharing w their employees that way they are not hogging all the profits to themselves while the rest of america has to survive off the peanuts they throw at us.the company you work for does well, you do well as simple as that.


Many companies already do, that is how they attract the best employees. I would like to see more companies do this as well, what I would not like to see is the government using force to make it happen.

I guess anyone could always start a business of their own, work night and day for years to make it profitable and split the profit equally with each employee that they hire. You should go for it, might start a new trend.

edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Oh my god.. Why am I not surprised you still refuse to actually talk about the topic of the thread.





That is the bottom line taken from the piece you posted. He based that on:


What part of "Full time workers" do you not understand. A lie of omission. The article was about FULL TIME WORKERS. It was stated PLAINLY for all to see and than the data presented was only about Full time workers. No lie of omission.

A lie of omission would be saying "Workers" and then only showing the full time data.




The full information from BLS shows that there are millions of full time minimum wage workers so that the piece you based the OP on is BS. Why would that not be pertinent to the discussion? Building a discussion upon something incorrect is a waste of time.


The article is not BS. It is about FULL TIME WORKERS. It is not an article about All Workers or part time workers. It is only about FULL TIME WORKERS.

You pat yourself on the back for pointing out the obvious as much as you want. I just want to know if you are actually going to address the topic of the thread like I have asked or if you are going to keep attempting to derail it with nonsense that has nothing to do with my OP?

I am more than happy to discuss the actual topic of this thread with you. That topic is possible negative impact to low skill workers from minimum wage laws. I have no more time to argue with you about nonsense that is off topic.
edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


There are full time workers making less than minimum wage which constitute millions of workers so yes the article is BS.

What you keep calling the topic of the OP is BS as well.
edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


There are full time workers making less than minimum wage which constitute millions of workers so yes the article is BS.

What you keep calling the topic of the OP is BS as well.
edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


So I take that as you refuse to examine the possibility that an employer won't hire an unskilled worker for more than they are worth? That is just so far out in left feild it couldn't possibly ever happen. I mean what employer wants equal value for their money?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
my mom was working for $10.20 an hour and she was the only one working.
after 3 years she managed to save $30,000.00 how's that for ya Murica'.

i'm not knockin' you Americans *me included* but my mom, saved virtually every cent *literally, she would put it in those rolls and change them for paper* she'd save and use cuppons when possible, and worked overtime.

we, *the ones in school* didn't ware designer clothes, or pay for F&$#*n cable, or buy fast food.

WE WERE POOR, *by american standards*.

but due to her HARD WORK, she managed to pay for a house in full *with those $30 thousand and not worry much about working hard.

this is what America has forgotten, which is to live within their means, then cut back more only the necessities.
*food
*clothes - not designer clothes or shoes
*shelter
*education - one computer
internet connection
*cellphone

not necessary
*flat-screen TVs and TVs in every room
*cable
*cellphones for everyone in the family
*allowance - we probably got 5 dollars week when we were kids *7 -11 yrs old*
*toys - kids don't need toys, let them play outside
no xbox360, or other consoles or dozens of games

*drugs/alcohol - do i even need to mention this
*pets - i know, i have 3 dogs, but i live on a farm :p, the city is more expensive when it comes to pets, so are the medical bills.
*new cars - just because


living within our means is not that difficult, with all the money you save you can pay for a house in full in a few years - especially if you're a couple and both save.

then again, what do i know.............



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The argument of the article is invalid. The numbers are fudged.

Why?

This article is based on Federal Minimum Wage

18 states have a minimum wage that is more than $7.25 per hour. That means 100% of workers in those states make above Federal Minimum Wage, even the unskilled, entry level jobs. (SOURCE)

When you consider that based the chart found here, these 18 states contain about 44% of the total US population, that is a significant percentage to start off with. That skews the numbers significantly upwards. Not to mention that some states add caveats for businesses grossing under a certain amount, or with certain benefits.

From:Urban Dictionary

slave wage: to pay some money for doing a job or task that is around minimum wage or below and offer them no dignity or appreciation.



The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual must earn to support their family, if they are the sole provider and are working full-time

source

A minimum wage (whether federal or state) should reflect something more in tune with what is referred to as a "living wage", anything below that is, in my opinion "slave wage".

There is a calculator here which should give you an idea, and gives a nice breakdown of expenses.

According to this article Texas is the state with the lowest cost of living. Look at the "living wage" on the sourced calculator.

By referencing the above living wage calculator you can see that "Slave Wages" are generally paid to people who work in Healthcare Support, Protective Service , Food Preparation and Serving Related, Building and Grounds Cleaning and maintenance, Personal care and Services , Sales and Related, Office and Administrative Support, Farming, Fishing and Forestry, Construction and Extraction, Installation, Maintenance and Repair, Production,Transportation and Material Moving industries if you poke around a bit and compare, but there are only slight variances of industry by state.

The only reason that I believe this will affect the job market is because the fat cats and big wigs will not sacrifice their huge paychecks, their way of living high on the hog if they are "forced" to pay more in wages.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
So I take that as you refuse to examine the possibility that an employer won't hire an unskilled worker for more than they are worth? That is just so far out in left feild it couldn't possibly ever happen. I mean what employer wants equal value for their money?

Your example is made to fit.

Nobody hires unless there is growth. If the growth won't sustain a person at minimum wage then the workload is shared shared among the existing workforce or part timers or temps are brought on.

If it comes to actually needing to hire a full time worker then that would indicate that there is enough growth to pay them at least minimum wage and even leave a little more on the bottom line.

That is closer to reality than having two full time position worth $5/hr.

edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh
 


Ok, I have addressed peoples criticism of the article in the OP ad nauseam so if you will allow me, I would like to try and change the narrative a bit.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the stats are complete crap. Lets ignore the article completely, move past all that and just get down to the Main Point that I am trying to express.

Do you feel like an employer will pay an unskilled worker applying for a job more than that employer feels they are worth?

I'm not talking about what you or I may feel an unskilled worker is worth only what the employer is thinking.

Generally, Do you think that an employer will hire an unskilled worker knowing that they will have to pay that person more than the value they feel that person will bring to the business.

If yes, Why?

If no, then doesn't that suggest that minimum wage laws can be an obstacle for unskilled workers to gain employment?

edit on 28-2-2013 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 





Your example is made to fit.

Nobody hires unless there is growth. If the growth won't sustain a person at minimum wage then the workload is shared shared among the existing workforce or part timers or temps are brought on.

If it comes to actually needing to hire a full time worker then that would indicate that there is enough growth to pay them at least minimum wage and even leave a little more on the bottom line.

That is closer to reality than having two full time position worth $5/hr.


None of what you just said changes the fact that an employer will not hire an unskilled worker for more than the value they feel that worker will bring to the business, which is the whole point of my example.

My god, it was just a simple example used to explain a concept, the concept being that an employer will only pay someone what they feel they are worth and if they are forced to pay a higher wage they will attempt to only hire the most skilled workers as the least skilled workers are not worth in their minds the amount they have to pay.

The whole point of the minimum wage is to help the unskilled worker, how is making the unskilled worker have a harder time finding employment and gaining work skills helping them?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 

Of course he won't. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, minimum wage is supposed to set the standard of living. That means that an employer won't hire unless the worker brings at least that much to the business. Well he shouldn't and this establishes that line.

The fact is that workers, even low skill workers, do bring that much and more to the businesses, which makes the whole argument moot. Most business owners will never own up to it though and will complain when raising minimum wage is brought up.

That's to be expected but in the end they just comply because the truth is that it's never as bad as they make it out to be and they stand to loose more from letting people go than from bumping up the salary of minimum wage workers.

edit on 28-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join