America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I cant say I even support the idea of minimum wage.

Im a high school dropout.

I worked cash jobs with illegal migrant workers for about $3.50-5 an hour depending on what we were doing. I learned some marketable skills and moved onto a better paying job but still unskilled labor. Wash rinse repeat

If I could've made a living wage on less than 80hrs a week in my unskilled labor positions, I would have stayed there. I couldn't, so I didn't.

Avoiding another rambling post: low wages were the primary driving force to me to get an education and a better career. I still value the lessons learned from those earlier jobs. But if I was even getting $10-12/hr at the time, id probably still be doing that.

And here's the problem.

You're trying to advocate making moral decisions on a very amoral process. You can't just wave your hands and say it's going to be better... or even fine. There are going to be effects.

So again, let's get some minimum wage exemptions for the mom and pop shops. It's not like they employ the vast numbers like the big companies do. And kid running a lemonade stand or a small lawn care business really aren't the issue. But it's what big business is hiding behind.

We all want to see more small businesses succeed. We have special laws for minority businesses, why not have special wage breaks for startups and small companies.

But for the big corporate consumers of low end labor there just is no excuse for them not paying a living wage.

So if Employee A (small business) does the same task for the same value as Employee B (large corporation) you think Employee B should get paid more simply because his company has greater profits? People should be paid for the value of their labor. Plain and simple. It's not Walmart or McDonald's job to be concerned enough if their employee Joe Smith earns enough income to be deemed a "living wage". They decide what Mr. Smith's labor is worth and Mr. Smith has the choice to agree and accept the position or disagree and walk away.

I never use that as an excuse. Primarily because I don't believe "fair" is even in the equation. Charity, Minimum Wages, Tax Credits, Welfare, not a single bit of that is based on any level of "fairness". One can argue it is "moral", depending on what one's morality dictates is necessary in the treatment of the weakest and least productive of us, but it actually has nothing to do with "fairness". In fact, I'd like to see any social construct which is truly built on "fairness".



My last increase was a 50% pay raise back in Sept. That's based on changing projects and a significant increase in my personal capabilities.
Minimum wage is specifically NOT based on increases in capabilities. The people earning that wage are literally at the absolute bottom of the nations workforce. To equate an increase in minimum wage with merit based raises is to really misunderstand the situation.

As for your "care must be taken in order to implement good and right... " You haven't really answered how your minimum wage increases (and you haven't said to what hourly rate) would be kept from negatively impacting the following demand curves:
- Demand for education (will decrease, as the value of uneducated labor increases)
- Demand for uneducated labor (will decrease, as the cost of uneducated labor increases).

To a greater or lesser extent (depending on the amount you want to raise the cost of labor) you will create a larger pool of people with zero skills and no job.

Now... this pool may just increase by 1 person (if you raised it 0.0001 cent) or it may increase by a million (if you raised it $50)....

But that's just the obvious impact. There may be others as well.

Brew, I never said "Fair" is unrealistic. Simply that it isn't part of the equation. You're talking about adding an arbitrary flat floor to the price of all labor done anywhere in the US. I don't think "fair" is something that is really being discussed here. If we were really honestly trying to be "fair" then there would be an assessment of what the employer is getting for each hour of the labor, and a specific minimum wage set for each type of labor, as well as some additional caveats for reduction in the wage based on poor performance. hell, in your next sentence, you yourself admit this isn't about "fairness" (your statement about true cost of labor/taxpayer subsidies).



Ok. You ARE increasing the cost of labor (to the employer). While I DON'T disagree that the labor performed at the lowest level is clearly subsidized by the taxpayers through various gov't safety nets, your solution INCREASES the cost of labor to the employer. In this case, you ARE decreasing the demand for that labor. It's the most fundamental economic theory. At some price, the employer will no longer want someone to do the work. And again... you're trying to bring fairness into it. This actually has nothing to do with fairness. You only think of it as "fairness" because you're looking at the gov't as subsidizing the employee's living requirements. But since when is it the employer's responsibility to fund the employee's living requirements?

This is the root of the problem. Your assertion appears to be that the most absolutely least value-adding job in the nation must still earn enough money to survive working only 40hrs a week, with no gov't subsidy. Is that what you believe? Because that is honestly NOT an attempt at fairness. If an employee is doing work which does NOT generate enough value for that amount of money, why must an employer be forced to subsidize the difference?

And in your rush to talk about "fair" you still haven't answered how you plan to handle the impact your changes will have on at least two of the demand curves associated with education and labor.

Well, let me see . . . .
Your solution is to let the working poor starve. If they can't earn enough money let them go hungry. A masterfully crafted plan, I must admit.
So basically, you don't have a clue. And are in no way student of history or understanding the implications of your philosophy.

Yet you find equitable distribution of the wealth that is generated impractical. And make no mistake that the Walmarts of America generate far more wealth then they would ever share with those that help bring it to them.

I get it Victor, inferior people should not be employed.

So just out of curiosity, how would you rationalize the raise that Congress got?

^^
Dude,,

Walmart saves the unwashed masses Billions in food, fuel and other essentials...

and OMG they make a profit,

Do you work for free ?

so,
They do their part,,,,


wheel,,

They can always find a better job,,,
And they pay no Fed Taxes and get Fed Benefits. So it all balances out, right ?

After all, we don't have a Feudal System, now do we ?

Believe it or not,,
A Business' main function is to make a profit. Not, provide Social Justice...
If the former occurs, well ok. If not,,that's ok too,,,

two words...

RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM,,,


wheel,,

Brilliant retort Bro !

You know are the best commie here !

I still luv ya , though,,,


wheel,,

All the above is still NOT an answer to my very specific questions about what you'd do regarding the changes in the demand curves.

And you put even more words in my mouth. I don't find "equitable distribution of the wealth" impractical. Impractical suggests I find it worthwhile but "too hard to accomplish". I stated that "fair" isn't the goal when you are demanding an employer completely satisfy an employee's living needs regardless of the complexity or skill of the labor supplied. "Fair" or "equitable" isn't considered from your side of the argument. You want to dress it up as "fair", you have some idea in your head that every piece of work produces enough value that an individual can support themselves doing it, but the reality is it doesn't. By legislating as if it did, you are forcing individual companies to provide "welfare" services if they want the simplest tasks performed.

Perhaps an example would be worthwhile.
Frank works in a widget factory sweeping the floor. He only earns $8.50 an hour, but works 40hrs a week earning 17k annually. His costs are taken out of the widget sales profits, and contribute some percentage to reducing the final profit of the company. Suddenly, widgetco is forced to pay him 10$/hr (20k annually). Now the president of widgetco has to decide whether that labor is worthwhile. Frank is not CONTRIBUTING to the bottom line, he is only a cost. Is having a clean widget manufacturing floor worth the additional 4k a year (more than that when you consider this will proportionately increase payroll taxes)? Are there other methods for ensuring the floor remains clean without having to pay so much (ie shop-floor rumbas)? Could the manager simply assign extra work to all the widget-laborers, and require they clean up after themselves without any additional pay?

Odds are, some percentage of the "franks" will find themselves unemployed, because they weren't providing a sufficient value to be worth keeping. These are the people at the "margin" in economic terms, where the value of what they are providing is right at the cost of the goods.

Your specific questions? Dude, you got nothing. Nothing in the way of solutions and only nebulous crap surrounding the problem. You say let them go hungry but you expect me to solve the world economic problems for you here on Cbid?

How about this Captain V? We give all the poor bums an increase of 3% prorated back over the last five years since they've had a raise. Now that's not technically of raise, only a cost of living adjustment. That's totally fair right?

I'm guessing that since you feel wage control is wrong when the government does it, that the best solution is unions, is that right?

Only if Marlena is not busy that night.


And has the clap.

I see the individual fixing the value of their own labor by acquiring skill sets that make their abilities more specialized to increase their earnings potential. One can do this through education, learning a trade/technical school, acquiring occupational certifications, etc. I think you are altruistic and have the right intentions to want to help lower earning folks more so than just punishing those who are well off.

Unfortunately there are always going to be those who either physically or mentally lack the aptitude to get higher than the poverty line. I don't feel that it is the responsibility of corporate America to bear the brunt of the burden to dig these folks out. They are in business to make money. Its great that many have a social conscience and contribute to charity but that should really be seen as a bonus not a certain expectation. I don't mind if some of my tax dollars go to assist those who are truly incapable of helping themselves. I do, however, believe there is a growing number of people in society today who are able bodied and have learned to game the system. When you see that disability claims have reached record numbers with such low numbers of job participation its not hard to deduct that there is widespread fraud.

ding ding ding.
We have a winner.


I'm no fan of Walmart's business model. If I were the reincarnation of Sam Walton, I'd build a better mousetrap.
But I'm sick of people treating it like they're evil.

Brew,
I bet you HATE when a corporation moves operations over seas.
Be careful what you wish for with government mandated pay scales.

In a market based economy/democracy income is best based on supply and demand. My skill set and work ethic determine what I earn. To artificially inflate earnings sets off a series of events that I view as detrimental to any society such as job loss and increased prices.

While I do feel a fiduciary duty to support people who are truly unable to support themselves by working this does not extend to people who are able to work. If they cannot support themselves or their family by working a 40 hour week then work a second job.

Also with all of the available government support the can get a better education.

Brewha is good people.

You libtard.

Not so much discernment as sarcastic baiting.

you believe in Global Warming,,,

So,
your opinion is moot....




wheel,,

No, I was baiting you . . . .

Sarcasm aside, what would YOU do if you owned a business?
Let's say you owned a shop in a slow part of some nothing state. Let's call it "florida".
The cost of living in this gawd-forsaken swamp area was quite low. A double wide chicken coop was considered highfalutin.

Anyhow, you're a nice guy so you pay a "fair" wage.
But then uncle sam comes along and sets a national minimum wage and it blows you out of the water.
You can't pay billy bob or his cousin Darrell anymore, at least not full time.

Do you fire them?
Or cut back on their hours?

Because either choice is akin to dancing with Beelzebub.
According to you.

Not apples to apples. I know.
But you know life has many more gray areas than black or white.
Government mandates don't use common sense.

If the liberals want to boycott Walmart, let them do it with their wallets rather than just their bad breath.

Meanwhile, it makes no sense to be hating on those who simply want to turn a profit by using legal means and putting in the work.

Wheel, buddy - 6:01 is way to early to be so in the bag.

Try having a glass of water in between snorts.

You guys gonna meet up and play in Durant this year..??