The Minimum Wage in One Paragraph

reply to post by daskakik


So you acknowledge that an employer will hire only the most skilled workers when forced to pay the workers more than they feel they are worth but you deny that this is an obstacle to workers of low skill to find employment? okay...

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by daskakik

 

So you acknowledge that an employer will hire only the most skilled workers when forced to pay the workers more than they feel they are worth but you deny that this is an obstacle to workers of low skill to find employment? okay...

No, I'm acknowledging that an employer will only hire a worker if the worker brings at least that amount of profit to the company and pointed out the even the lowest skilled worker can bring that amount, so claiming that minimum wage is causing americans to loose jobs is not really an accurate statement.

reply to post by daskakik

pointed out the even the lowest skilled worker can bring that amount

When exactly did you do that? when you asserted this?

The fact is that workers, even low skill workers, do bring that much and more to the businesses, which makes the whole argument moot.

Is that your opinion or the opinion of a vast majority of employers? If that was true, nobody would ever get fired. You and I may both feel that any human employee is worth much more than minimum wage but an employer is simply concerned with the bottom line.

sometimes the bottom line says a person is worth $6 an hour. No amount of feel good, people are worth more than money talk is going to change that bottom line.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Is that your opinion or the opinion of a vast majority of employers? You and I may both feel that any human employee is worth much more than minimum wage but an employer is simply concerned with the bottom line.

That is why they have to be forced.

sometimes the bottom line says a person is worth $6 an hour. No amount of feel good, people are worth more than money talk is going to change that bottom line.

Actually it isn't the person but the work that is worth that much. This isn't about feeling good. If the employer wants that position filled then he has to pay. Not worth minimum wage? Then, as I said before, spread the work out, hire part timers or temps. When its actually worth minimum wage then they will hire someone.

So, that position is not lost because of minimum wage it just doesn't make the cut as a full time minimum wage position.

reply to post by daskakik

Actually it isn't the person but the work that is worth that much. This isn't about feeling good. If the employer wants that position filled then he has to pay. Not worth minimum wage? Then, as I said before, spread the work out, hire part timers or temps. When its actually worth minimum wage then they will hire someone.

See that position is not lost because of minimum wage it just doesn't make the cut as a full time position.

Your glossing over the whole point again. It is not about the position getting filled. The position will obviously get filled. The point is that the position will ONLY be filled by the highest skilled applicant while the lowest skilled workers kick the can down the road to the next rejection.

In the absence of minimum wage, the low skilled worker has an ace in the hole, they will accept less money than a more highly skilled applicant, something an employer will consider a good thing and not gloss over.

This would give the low skill worker a job, job skills, a foot in the door for promotion, work history and a better chance of landing a higher paid job in the future.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Isn't that always the case, minimum wage or not?

If employers are always just looking at the bottom line then positions will ONLY be filled by those that offer more for less.

I read a few of the pages but let me start by saying your numbers are not good. For 6 years I was the only one working. My wife just went back to work. We do not have many things but house is 1000, a month, for the last month and my wife does not drive far to work in our van, it was 200 dollars in gas. I also have a son that is looking for work for him 7.25 is not a big deal. But it can be tough and I have lived in a very poor house. 300 dollars a month and 125 in food stamps. Now this was back in the 80's but that would last maybe a week or 2 in food. I know a women that works full time making 9.00 an hour and yet I give her a lot of food because she can not afford it after bills. Yes I think it needs to go up, I dont know how it will affect companies. But I know right now I am looking for a SQL person that I am paying 16-20 an hour for and most people say it is too low for an entry level position that you never have to leave your house for.

Tom

reply to post by ss830


points well made, points i made earlier. star 4 u!! anyone can save, but its even harder now w the price of groceries and gasoline. depending on what part of the country u live in, housing can be very expensive. can i ask what years ur mother was making that kind of money and able to save 30 g's? dont mean to be rude but no government assistance? my grandfather did similar in the 1950s-early 1980s when he retired, my parents did similar in the 80's-til present but they saved the majority of their money in the 80s when gas was a dollar a gallon and a full load of groceries was like 40 bucks. we never had new cars, cable, cellphones, designer clothes, we went out to eat maybe once a week etc etc...until the late 90s did my parents get cable, cellphones, they still drive older model cars and live frugally. i wish i could say the same for myself lol but at least i acknowledge this and am not in denial like most people.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

Isn't that always the case, minimum wage or not?

If employers are always just looking at the bottom line then positions will ONLY be filled by those that offer more for less.

No, what I said (in different words now) was that in absence of minimum wage, the employer might consider a lower skilled person they can pay less over a higher skilled worker that would demand more. With the minimum wage, they no longer have the option to pay the lower skilled worker less, since the wage would be the same for the lower skilled worker and the higher skilled worker, only the higher skilled worker has a shot.

reply to post by crashbehr

I read a few of the pages but let me start by saying your numbers are not good.

My numbers are just fine. Did you actually expect MY numbers to be the same as YOUR numbers? My numbers may not be equal to your numbers as obviously cost of living changes by location BUT, that doesn't mean my numbers are no good.

The reason I gave my numbers was because the person i was replying to said that on $10 an hour one could only afford gas and nothing else. I gave my numbers to show that at least in my area, that certainly wasn't true.

My numbers were honest and I stick by them. Obviously each person will have their own numbers and each person will have a different idea of what is the minimum they could live on. I am not here to tell anyone what they should accept as a wage to live on, only to try and explain to people how the minimum wage can potentially be a barrier for a low skilled worker trying to find employment.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

But why pay the lower skilled person if they can hire the higher skilled person for the same amount?

Minimum wage doesn't change that part of the employer/worker relationship. The unemployment rate does more to affect that then minimum wage. All it does is set a lower limit. In the end a lower skilled person will always loose out.

reply to post by daskakik

But why pay the lower skilled person if they can hire the higher skilled person for the same amount?

That is what I am asking you. Why in the world would they ever hire the lower skilled worker when they have to pay minimum wage no matter what?

That is what I have been trying to explain.

Example:
Minimum wage job available, two applicants, a low skilled and a higher skilled. The high skilled will always get it.

Same job available but no minimum wage laws exist, two applicants, the low skilled is willing to take $6 an hour for the job to gain the experience and get the job. Higher skilled is only willing to accept as low as $7.50 based on their work experience and their competitiveness in the job market.

Now the employer may still hire the higher skilled applicant but they may give the lower skilled applicant a chance, just to save the $1.50 an hour. If they have to pay $7.50 no matter what though, only the higher skilled applicant has a shot.

This is why I am saying that minimum wage laws have the potential to create barriers for low skill workers in the job market. This is the entire and only point of my thread.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

I know what you are trying to say but you're posting examples where the higher skilled applicant will not go as low as the lower skilled applicant. In real life this may not be the case.

If unemployment is up then the higher skilled worker might have no choice but to go just as low as the lower skilled worker and the lower skilled worker gets rejected. Minimum wage sets a lower limit, nothing more.

So if minimum wage is $10/hr but the higher skilled worker won't work for less than $15 then the lower skilled worker gets the position. A higher minimum wage won't keep him from getting the job if the higher skilled worker demands more than the minimum. So the result of your examples doesn't pivot on the minimum wage but on the higher skilled workers idea of self worth.

why is there no set maximum wage. I have always been baffled by that. There are some people who could get to a point where they can acquire all the wealth leaving little or none for the rest but apparently that is okay.

As Inflation increases by the year, you are working harder for less. Then every few years they will raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation, but they don't raise it enough to keep up completely.

reply to post by daskakik

In real life this may not be the case.

Well of course and I accept that, but you would have to admit that the more skilled a worker is the more money they expect and their minimum accepted wage is going to be higher than someone with less skills. That is just how it works. The amount of job skills one has is directly related to the amount of money one commands in the job market.

So if minimum wage is $10/hr but the higher skilled worker won't work for less than $15 then the lower skilled worker gets the position. A higher minimum wage won't keep him from getting the job if the higher skilled worker demands more than the minimum. So the result of your examples doesn't pivot on the minimum wage but on the higher skilled workers idea of self worth.

I accept that but we are not just talking about lower skilled workers we are talking about the LOWEST skilled workers. I have made no argument that says a lower skilled worker can't get a job against a higher skilled worker that is demanding more money, in fact I have been saying just that.

Minimum wage sets a lower limit, nothing more.

Yes, and it is that lower limit that creates the barrier for the lowest skilled workers.

Your low skill worker that got the job for $10 an hour beat out even lower skilled workers that would have accepted $8 and from that fact may have gotten the job and had the opportunity to advance their life.

That is the barrier I keep talking about.

reply to post by Burnsie262


Yeah, but why attempt to treat a symptom with the minimum wage law rather than attack the source of the problem, which is monetary inflation?

The minimum wage law not only doesn't keep up with inflation, it creates a barrier for low skilled workers attempting to enter the job market, creates additional inflation and creates additional layoffs all these things making it "necessary" once again to raise the minimum wage.

All the time never treating the problem, only the symptom and not even treating the symptom well.

reply to post by votan

why is there no set maximum wage. I have always been baffled by that. There are some people who could get to a point where they can acquire all the wealth leaving little or none for the rest but apparently that is okay.

There is no maximum wage for the same reason there should not be a minimum wage, a government has no right or authority to tell a free person how much or how little they can make. The governments only authority in this is to make sure they make the money honestly. Obviously they have failed in that regard. In fact participating in the dishonesty.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Well of course and I accept that, but you would have to admit that the more skilled a worker is the more money they expect and their minimum accepted wage is going to be higher than someone with less skills. That is just how it works. The amount of job skills one has is directly related to the amount of money one commands in the job market.

Which is why the minimum wage rarely becomes that barrier you keep mentioning.

I accept that but we are not just talking about lower skilled workers we are talking about the LOWEST skilled workers. I have made no argument that says a lower skilled worker can't get a job against a higher skilled worker that is demanding more money, in fact I have been saying just that.

And the lowest skilled worker is worth minimum wage.

Yes, and it is that lower limit that creates the barrier for the lowest skilled workers.

Your low skill worker that got the job for $10 an hour beat out even lower skilled workers that would have accepted $8 and from that fact may have gotten the job and had the opportunity to advance their life.

C'mon what's next? The "even lower" skilled worker at $8 beat out a "even more lower" skilled worker at $7.

If someone wants to get a foot in the door then can enter an apprenticeship or do volunteer work. You could work off the books or even work as an independent contractor and work for less than minimum wage. I doubt that ever happens but it would be a way around that barrier, if you ever came upon it.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by votan

 

why is there no set maximum wage. I have always been baffled by that. There are some people who could get to a point where they can acquire all the wealth leaving little or none for the rest but apparently that is okay.

There is no maximum wage for the same reason there should not be a minimum wage, a government has no right or authority to tell a free person how much or how little they can make. The governments only authority in this is to make sure they make the money honestly. Obviously they have failed in that regard. In fact participating in the dishonesty.

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

I don't disagree with what the government should or not be doing but that isn't really what I am asking. I am asking why the government would set a minimum wage and not a maximum wage.

What is the agenda behind setting a minimum wage and not a maximum wage.

The only bone I have to pick on whether the government can or cannot say how much one can make is.. well if we live on some land and I monopolize all the resources honestly till you and your family have nothing not even my scraps is that okay?? You and your kin would die as a result of me honestly beating the shenanigans out of you on the resource competition. Is that acceptable??

Is it acceptable that a group that got a leg up on everyone else can get to a point where they will always be at that level and no one else ever having a shot unless they exploit a new way to take away from the ones on top??

Have you ever played the game of monopoly?? why do people stop playing?? is it because they quit or simply because some one acquired all the resources.


I am just looking at both sides. for the record I make a bundle and really have no financial problems nor healthcare problems but I am not blind.

There is a reason why a minimum wage was placed. what is that reason??

And why was there no need to put a maximum wage??

I would really like to know why one is in place and not the other.