Minimum wage

Quote: LarryS

I get a kick out of people who complain that walmat wages are low...

this type of work doesnt demand high wages.

+1

This article cracks me up: Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

The idiot organizers are demanding $15/hr for fast food workers. Is flipping burgers really worth $15/hr??? I hope fast food restaurants make everything automated and fire these people.

Then again, if that happened, they'd probably start demanding $15/hr for staying at home.

Quote: LarryS

I get a kick out of people who complain that walmat wages are low.

Many low level jobs at walmart can be done by people who dropped out of public school at an early age. Cashiers scan, bag, and give change to a customer that the register calculates for them. Yes they also have to know how to weight bananas or onions....but other than that the technology allows them to be uneducated and still do the job. Corporate decides what endcaps should look like, how many facings ofan item go on a shelf, how mcuh of items should be in stock.

walmart has the running of a store down to a science where they dont really need people to think much..just do physical labor according to policy and procedure. Thye need good soldiers for alot of their positions. Walmart does all the thinking..and the soldiers do the predetermined labor.

this type of work doesnt demand high wages.

its the type of work is great for college kids needing extra cash, high school kids, or people that just cant command higher paying jobs. Also its good for people willing to bite the bullet and get the lower pay in exchange for getting experience in retail for resume value and future job procurement.

the complaint that you cant raise a family from walmart cashier wages is bogus because who says that every job should pay enough to allow your to raise a family.
SHould the person scooping ice cream at Baskin Robbins expect to raise a family from those wages? Or the person making sandwiches at subway?.

there is no law or morality that states that every job should allow one to raise a family from its wages.

People can grouse all they want but that won't change reality.

I agree that these jobs don't command big wages, who would think they should. I'm sure no one want's to hear how it was but I had the experience as one of my high school jobs cooking for Col. Sanders before it was the more acceptable KFC. They cut some kind of deal with the labor dept. or whoever was in charge but they got to pay all of us 1/2 minimum wage for 6 months while we were being trained to deep fry chicken, I didn't make the 6 months.

Many of these jobs were done by high school kids, everyone I knew had a job and a work ethic. It kind of gripes me that I see many young people that think they can walk out of party college and expect to start at 60k plus. It isn't a realistic expectation. A delusion from watching tv for so many years where no one gets dirty or tired and everyone drives a new car.

Like the wizard said above some of wm shelf stockers don't deserve a third what they make. I wonder when they will figure out a robot to stock the shelves?
Mostly I don't think the low end on some of these menial positions is a good career move. Hard to believe in this information age that people would be ignorant enough to think they could start a family and raise them on that kind of money. But, alas many kids are conceived without thinking about how to support them.

It saddens me a little when I see so many seniors taking those jobs, it isn't because they were bored. The fastest growing demographic in the country for new jobs is the 55-64 old age group. In this purported new job creation as reported by the BLS, they seem to not mention that statistic. I think it's 30% of 22-34 year olds are again living with their parents.

A recent article said Mcdonalds workers couldn't afford to eat there. My opinion is these trade agreements have not been good for the country and the leadership has failed. The labor laws enacted in the late 60's or 70's prevented young people from learning what supporting themselves and earning their own money was all about. A job provides a lot more than just a paycheck.

Quote: LarryS

there is no law or morality that states that every job should allow one to raise a family from its wages.

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

Quote: s2dbaker

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

Who ever said that any job out there was supposed to let you raise a family? Where did this notion come from? Entry level jobs never were about raising a family, they are about getting work experience or working your way through training/college while you tried to get the good job.

Minimum wage is not supposed to be a wage someone can raise a family on. It's for unskilled labor, or those just starting out, part time summer jobs and the like. If the minimum wage becomes $15 per hour...a lot of people will lose the jobs they have. Not to mention those higher costs get passed along to everyone else. In addition if the wage floor is set too high..it gives people no incentive to go to school and/or develop their skills to get a higher paying job. When will people understand that the government needs to be LESS involved in the economy not MORE.

Quote: vendman1

Minimum wage is not supposed to be a wage someone can raise a family on. It's for unskilled labor, or those just starting out, part time summer jobs and the like. If the minimum wage becomes $15 per hour...a lot of people will lose the jobs they have. Not to mention those higher costs get passed along to everyone else. In addition if the wage floor is set too high..it gives people no incentive to go to school and/or develop their skills to get a higher paying job. When will people understand that the government needs to be LESS involved in the economy not MORE.

The far left does not understand that to pay a worker $15 an hour said worker needs to be producing $50 an hour or so in value to the employer.

Quote: s2dbaker

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

s2dbaker's replies are almost cartoonish now.

Quote: Beethoven9th

s2dbaker's replies are almost cartoonish now.

But definitely unfunny. Maybe time to put under blocked member as there hasn't been an iota of value for a very long time.

Quote: boymimbo

Unfortunately, they have to earn at least minimum wage. Them's the rules.

That's true...sill overpaid.

Quote:

Cutting down a workforce or having a workforce outsource their operations to Mexico or China may be good for the operational efficiency of the vendor, not so good for the American worker. You rarely see manufactured goods, textiles, or anything else for that matter (besides food) sold in Walmart that was made in the good-ol USA. That's because the vendor can't compete with an offshored operation.

That's true, with respect to the American worker, and even if you cut down on American workers, in terms of number, but continue to manufacture/distribute exclusively in America, that's still not good for gross employment. In any event, the American worker is immaterial to the operational efficiency of an individual company on a Macro-Level, and the global economy could also care less about the American worker. If production is moved to Mexico, then Mexico is improved as a result, at least, theoretically.

It depends on where an organization or country's priorities are. Companies that demonstrate that they are concerned with the American worker may, in fact, generate goodwill amongst American citizens and get a piece of the market they otherwise might not have had, but other Americans may still purchase a cheaper foreign product. In fact, people who work for the company in question might even purchase the cheaper foreign product!

Quote:

Walmart's wages and benefits have always been seen as very poor for the worker.

I don't know how being able to walk into a Wal-Mart Distribution Center at $18.45/hour to start for a person who does not need to have a high school education or to have ever worked before is poor for the worker. All they need to do is pass a drug test and a physical abilities test.

I mean, yeah, the wages probably such if you're a cashier. They should suck. You're a cashier. Still make more than cashier jobs I've seen advertised at other places that were hiring.

Quote:

If you want to support America's race to the bottom, then by all means, shop at Walmart, exclusively.

???

When did I say I shop there exclusively, or even very often? I do almost all of my grocery shopping elsewhere, with exception to diapers, because WM seems to be the only place that wants to have reasonable diaper prices. I neither feel compelled to shop at WM nor avoid WM. In the last two months, the only things I have purchased from WM are diapers and light bulbs for my kitchen light because Kroger did not have those kind of light bulbs.

Quote:

And that's my point really. Walmart is a marvel of an operation from top to bottom. Capitalism at nearly its most efficient. Get the most for what you can sell, and pay the least for what you buy, and knock anyone you can out of business.

That's pretty much true, and we could discuss why Pure Capitalism is fundamentally idiotic, and we'd certainly find lots of agreement there...but that'd be for another thread.

Quote: LarryS

Many low level jobs at walmart can be done by people who dropped out of public school at an early age. Cashiers scan, bag, and give change to a customer that the register calculates for them. Yes they also have to know how to weight bananas or onions....but other than that the technology allows them to be uneducated and still do the job. Corporate decides what endcaps should look like, how many facings ofan item go on a shelf, how mcuh of items should be in stock.

They don't need to know how to weigh anything! When I was a cashier eleven years ago, you just put it on a scale and put in the item code, then the register does the rest!

I believe that the computers largely dictate the endcaps and facings, at Giant Eagle, though, we decided that on a store level based on what we thought demand for the item would be at the sale price.

Quote:

the complaint that you cant raise a family from walmart cashier wages is bogus because who says that every job should pay enough to allow your to raise a family.
SHould the person scooping ice cream at Baskin Robbins expect to raise a family from those wages? Or the person making sandwiches at subway?.

there is no law or morality that states that every job should allow one to raise a family from its wages.

I personally think that any full-time job should enable an individual to make enough money to raise a family, and that any full-time job be indexed to the present cost of living. However, I recognize that same is not actually the case, so I have no problem with WM, or anyone else, paying what they want to pay pursuant to what the flawed system allows them to pay them.

Quote: s2dbaker

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

That's a start.

Quote: s2dbaker

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

What? Do you think they are just printing this money out of thin air?

If "they" would just increase the value of a dollar then worker's could be paid less, how bout that?

Now in Japan there are actually more adult diapers being sold then baby diapers, kids should make enough to support their parents or why else have kids?

Quote: AZDuffman

The far left does not understand that to pay a worker $15 an hour said worker needs to be producing $50 an hour or so in value to the employer.

Rush has been saying for 20 years to raise
the min wage to $40 an hour, what's the
difference. McD's and BK will charge $12
for a hamburger to make up the difference,
and the min wage person will be right where
they started.

Quote: EvenBob

Rush has been saying for 20 years to raise
the min wage to $40 an hour, what's the
difference. McD's and BK will charge $12
for a hamburger to make up the difference,
and the min wage person will be right where
they started.

Know what this is (index finger touched near thumb and moving back and forth)?? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the people who work fast food.

What cracks me up is all of these people who think that pre-1980 you just graduated high school and got a good job in the trades making good money. Maybe if you had a close relative with some pull working inside the mill, but that was the exception. Even then you could expect to toil on a labor gang or be an apprentice for years.

But even those guys (and they were guys) got more because they were learning a trade and building skills. Today you hear these quotes of, "I've been working at MCD for 5 years and am just making $9 an hour!" Well no kidding! Have you tried to move into management or work in the corporate area? Have you done anything at all to increase your value to your employer? If the answer is "no" then it is no wonder you are still near the bottom.

Then there is the fact that there are other places to work besides fast food. Learn a trade, learn to sell, do something! Hustle! Because if you are expecting me to pay $9 for a Bic Mac just so you can "support a family" you are in for a big surprise.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because if you are expecting me to pay $9 for a Bic Mac just so you can "support a family" you are in for a big surprise.

But they wouldn't be able to support a family
even if the min wage went to $25. Everything
else would go up proportionally so it would be
just like making $9 an hour.

Gov't regulation of the marketplace is the only
thing that's 'fair'. That's what they had in the
old Soviet Union and look what happened to them.
Capitalism is the only thing that works on a large
scale, it lets the marketplace balance itself.

Quote: EvenBob

But they wouldn't be able to support a family
even if the min wage went to $25. Everything
else would go up proportionally so it would be
just like making $9 an hour.

Gov't regulation of the marketplace is the only
thing that's 'fair'. That's what they had in the
old Soviet Union and look what happened to them.
Capitalism is the only thing that works on a large
scale, it lets the marketplace balance itself.

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. A marketplace is governed by laws. Laws are created by government. Whether that government is the United States or old Soviet Union, there's no marketplace without regulation.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. A marketplace is governed by laws. Laws are created by government. Whether that government is the United States or old Soviet Union, there's no marketplace without regulation.

Non sequitur. Laws of the marketplace were there before the first government existed. A caveman needed an ax but was not good at making one. Another had good hunting skills but wasn't a good craftsman. So the ax was traded for some food. This is the first law of a marketplace, "Without a deal that benefits both sides no deal will be made."

This law of the marketplace was proven in the 1970s when the feds tried to regulate the price of oil. When the price was set too low few suppliers showed up.

The laws of economics exist everywhere from your corner store to a prison. And they are of higher importance than the laws a government can make as the later can be avoided but the former cannot.

When one gets out of the Faculty Lounge and into the real world one learns this.

Quote: AZDuffman

Know what this is (index finger touched near thumb and moving back and forth)?? It's the world's smallest violin playing just for the people who work fast food.

What cracks me up is all of these people who think that pre-1980 you just graduated high school and got a good job in the trades making good money. Maybe if you had a close relative with some pull working inside the mill, but that was the exception. Even then you could expect to toil on a labor gang or be an apprentice for years.

But even those guys (and they were guys) got more because they were learning a trade and building skills. Today you hear these quotes of, "I've been working at MCD for 5 years and am just making $9 an hour!" Well no kidding! Have you tried to move into management or work in the corporate area? Have you done anything at all to increase your value to your employer? If the answer is "no" then it is no wonder you are still near the bottom.

Then there is the fact that there are other places to work besides fast food. Learn a trade, learn to sell, do something! Hustle! Because if you are expecting me to pay $9 for a Bic Mac just so you can "support a family" you are in for a big surprise.

Hard to believe the ignorance. I'm a bit of a bleeding heart myself, however it's tough for me to listen to an argument about not being able to support a family working these low wage jobs. And I'm guessing that's also based on what a 29 hour or 40 hour workweek? I'm starting to get worked up now. If someone wants to be responsible and raise a family try working 2 or 3 jobs. What are these workers doing with all the time they have left after a grueling 29 hour workweek?

Try working 6-7 days a week, and don't spend everything you make on I-crap or impressing your friends with an automobile you can't afford. If you can't afford a quarter million dollar mortgage, don't sign one. Geez, how bout some personal responsibility.

My wife when we met had 3 jobs and mine took almost 3 thousand hours a year. She still had time to volunteer for the Lions club, the vfw, red cross and the American Legion and house sat for 1-8 people while away and kept up dancing skills and bowled a 160 avg. We still had time to date, although there was some sleep sacrificed.

If I have to eat at Mickey D's regardless of price, I think of it as a punishment for inferior planning.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's the dumbest thing I've read today. A marketplace is governed by laws. Laws are created by government. Whether that government is the United States or old Soviet Union, there's no marketplace without regulation.

And this is the s2pidest thing I've read today. Props to AZ for dismantling this s2pid argument.

Quote: Beethoven9th

And this is the s2pidest thing I've read today. Props to AZ for dismantling this s2pid argument.

It is more of liberals thinking everything can be controlled if you just do it right. This is why so many liberals are atheists. They do not understand there are forces greater than man that man must live and work with. They feel the answer is "pass a law and all will be well."

Quote: Mission146

They don't need to know how to weigh anything! When I was a cashier eleven years ago, you just put it on a scale and put in the item code, then the register does the rest!

I believe that the computers largely dictate the endcaps and facings, at Giant Eagle, though, we decided that on a store level based on what we thought demand for the item would be at the sale price.




I personally think that any full-time job should enable an individual to make enough money to raise a family, and that any full-time job be indexed to the present cost of living. However, I recognize that same is not actually the case, so I have no problem with WM, or anyone else, paying what they want to pay pursuant to what the flawed system allows them to pay them.

So If I own Larrys ICE CREAM SHOP,and I employ 3 part time/minimum wage ice cream scoopers who scoop ice cream into cones or cups, and clean up during down time, and one of them quits. And one of the part timers asks if she can have the extra hours. I say sure but according to you I now have to pay her enough to raise a family of what? a stay at home husband and 2 children? 3 children 4 children? How big is the family that I as the busness owner needs to provide enough wages to provide this "support".

Walmart cashiers are so essential that my walmart has 8 self checkout registers. Meaning that walmart cashiers a providing a non essential service. They are providing a service that an eightyear old child can provide. And for this they deserve for walmart to fully support their family when they work for them full time? Really?

Quote: LarryS

So If I own Larrys ICE CREAM SHOP,and I employ 3 part time/minimum wage ice cream scoopers who scoop ice cream into cones or cups, and clean up during down time, and one of them quits. And one of the part timers asks if she can have the extra hours. I say sure but according to you I now have to pay her enough to raise a family of what? a stay at home husband and 2 children? 3 children 4 children? How big is the family that I as the busness owner needs to provide enough wages to provide this "support".

Quit being so greedy. You are supposed to pay all the scoopers enough for a family of 4 to live on plus cover their health insurance, and some paid time off as well. Of course this means the shop probably needs to do at least $5K in business a day, but that is easily solved if you simply raise your prices high enough.

Quote: petroglyph

Hard to believe the ignorance. I'm a bit of a bleeding heart myself, however it's tough for me to listen to an argument about not being able to support a family working these low wage jobs. And I'm guessing that's also based on what a 29 hour or 40 hour workweek? I'm starting to get worked up now. If someone wants to be responsible and raise a family try working 2 or 3 jobs. What are these workers doing with all the time they have left after a grueling 29 hour workweek?

I know two men that both work two 40 hour per week jobs. They work seven days a week. Four days per week they work only one job and on the other three days they work both jobs (16 hours). They have both been doing this for at least the last ten years I have known them. Surprisingly, neither of them complain about it and are actually happy that they can get that many hours. They both have many kids and the wives stay home with the children.

It is actually refreshing to see people that are willing to do that for their families.

On the other hand I am very lazy. I rarely put in more than 35 hours in a week and I complain a lot. Fortunately, I have been able to afford to raise my family on the income I make in those 35 hours.

Quote: petroglyph

Hard to believe the ignorance. I'm a bit of a bleeding heart myself, however it's tough for me to listen to an argument about not being able to support a family working these low wage jobs. And I'm guessing that's also based on what a 29 hour or 40 hour workweek? I'm starting to get worked up now. If someone wants to be responsible and raise a family try working 2 or 3 jobs. What are these workers doing with all the time they have left after a grueling 29 hour workweek?

Try working 6-7 days a week, and don't spend everything you make on I-crap or impressing your friends with an automobile you can't afford. If you can't afford a quarter million dollar mortgage, don't sign one. Geez, how bout some personal responsibility.

My wife when we met had 3 jobs and mine took almost 3 thousand hours a year. She still had time to volunteer for the Lions club, the vfw, red cross and the American Legion and house sat for 1-8 people while away and kept up dancing skills and bowled a 160 avg. We still had time to date, although there was some sleep sacrificed.

If I have to eat at Mickey D's regardless of price, I think of it as a punishment for inferior planning.

actually u are right. In the 70's when I went to college, it was before the days when the govt was giving out 100k to everyone for student loans. People DID have to keep a bunch of part time jobs in order to pay as you go thru school. The good thing is that when we got out of school we werent in bib big debt. We could take less money at entry level jobs and be happy with it so that we could work our way up.
If we were irresponsible and ran up our credit card to high levels..we DID take extra jobs on weekends or nights to pay it off. We didnt declare bankruptcy, we didnt call one of those companies that negotiate for me to get my balance reduced to pennies on the dollar. I didnt have children util I was able to have a ob that could support them. I didnt get a job, have children, and then complain that my company doesnt supply me with enough money to support a family. Resposible people will plan their families for when their job(s) and ensuing salaries are suffient. Families take resposible planning.

Quote: DRich

I know two men that both work two 40 hour per week jobs. They work seven days a week. Four days per week they work only one job and on the other three days they work both jobs (16 hours). They have both been doing this for at least the last ten years I have known them. Surprisingly, neither of them complain about it and are actually happy that they can get that many hours. They both have many kids and the wives stay home with the children.

It is actually refreshing to see people that are willing to do that for their families.

On the other hand I am very lazy. I rarely put in more than 35 hours in a week and I complain a lot. Fortunately, I have been able to afford to raise my family on the income I make in those 35 hours.

Sounds like my family. Mom stayed home and dad worked many many hours. He was gone before I woke up and was home after I went to sleep. My parents and most parents of my generation believed in sacrifice for the family good. They didnt have all the new gadgets of the day, they didnt go out "clubbing" during the week and on weekends while grandma watched me. No expensive dinners out, no expensive vacations. They lived for their children. they lived for the family.They didnt expect someone else to support their family.

Quote: AZDuffman

The laws of economics exist everywhere from your corner store to a prison. And they are of higher importance than the laws a government can make as the later can be avoided but the former cannot.

Duffman, do you prefer the era of robber barons? How would you control the rise of such people without government interference, or does it matter to you?

Quote:

These practices included exerting control over national resources, accruing high levels of government influence, paying extremely low wages, squashing competition by acquiring competitors in order to create monopolies and eventually raise prices, and schemes to sell stock at inflated prices[2] to unsuspecting investors in a manner which would eventually destroy the company for which the stock was issued and impoverish investors.[2] The term combines the sense of criminal ("robber") and illegitimate aristocracy (a baron is an illegitimate role in a republic).[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Quote: DRich

I know two men that both work two 40 hour per week jobs. They work seven days a week. Four days per week they work only one job and on the other three days they work both jobs (16 hours). They have both been doing this for at least the last ten years I have known them. Surprisingly, neither of them complain about it and are actually happy that they can get that many hours. They both have many kids and the wives stay home with the children.

It is actually refreshing to see people that are willing to do that for their families.

On the other hand I am very lazy. I rarely put in more than 35 hours in a week and I complain a lot. Fortunately, I have been able to afford to raise my family on the income I make in those 35 hours.

DRich, that's great that you can do that. Not everyone can. I was referring to the other arguments about those expecting more for a low value product. I'm just venting a little about irresponsibility.

Those two hard worker's there are showing there kids by example which is one way they learn. It's certainly not always pleasant to work that hard and long and hopefully it isn't forever. And by them realizing the value of the mom's being there to rear the children the kids will probably turn out better because of it.

We've both seen having babies as a form of early retirement to gain access to the government dole and witnessed the typical product of that type of thinking in how the kids come out. Often times thinking underachieving is just fine.

I grew up where if you wanted something that was fine, just earn it and it's yours. I've seen too many times what people don't earn the things they acquire and they don't respect the items and often see them in the yard in dis-repair or the trash.

A "robber baron" is bad, but a "robber government" is even worse.

Quote: rxwine

Duffman, do you prefer the era of robber barons? How would you control the rise of such people without government interference, or does it matter to you?

The market eventually controlled robber barons. Even as Standard Oil was being broken up they were losing their grip on the near-monopoly they had. In modern times, IBM was seen as unbeatable in 1979, until Microsoft took computing by storm to the point the feds tried to sue them for break-up in 1997. Then in 1998 Google came on the scene. Will competition eventually knock Google off? Of course it will! Same as Sears was a dominating force until about 197 when discounters came on the scene.

If not for Andrew Carnegie many steelworkers would have been eeking out an existence on <10 acre farms living on potatoes. And the Steelers football team would have no proud nickname.

I do love it how if you are not for a minimum wage increase you must be for going back to the Gilded Age.

Quote: AZDuffman

The market eventually controlled robber barons.

The ascension of the new robber baron to replace the old.

Congratulations, you have survived smallpox. Welcome to tuberculosis. It's not too bad at first.

Minimum wage, and labor laws (or government interference), etc., are reasons the solution isn't just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Quote: s2dbaker

Minimum wage should be increased to $15 per hour. Not only because it's the moral thing to do but because it would be a law that allows one to raise a family.

lololol. it took me awhile to realize he wasn't making fun of someone else. good stuff right there.

Quote: AZDuffman

The market eventually controlled robber barons. Even as Standard Oil was being broken up they were losing their grip on the near-monopoly they had.

Whats funny is, when the monopoly was broken up,
and Standard was split up into all the new companies
and were now being publicly traded on the stock market,
Rockefeller's wealth went thru the roof. He went from
being rich, to being mega-rich.

Quote: rxwine

The ascension of the new robber baron to replace the old.

Congratulations, you have survived smallpox. Welcome to tuberculosis. It's not too bad at first.

Minimum wage, and labor laws (or government interference), etc., are reasons the solution isn't just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

There will always be a few at the top of society doing well at the seemingly "expense of the worker." In the USA we have corporations, in the USSR they had the government running a "worker's paradise."

I know where I would always rather have been.

Quote: AZDuffman

In the USA we have corporations, in the USSR they had the government running a "worker's paradise."

They had one brand of toilet paper and bread and
cars. You waited in lines and got on lists. There
were always shortages of everything.

Capitalism is the only thing that works well.

Quote: EvenBob

They had one brand of toilet paper and bread and
cars. You waited in lines and got on lists. There
were always shortages of everything.

Capitalism is the only thing that works well.

Know what their first choice of brands was?

Pepsi or Coca-Cola.

Quote: LarryS

So If I own Larrys ICE CREAM SHOP,and I employ 3 part time/minimum wage ice cream scoopers who scoop ice cream into cones or cups, and clean up during down time, and one of them quits. And one of the part timers asks if she can have the extra hours. I say sure but according to you I now have to pay her enough to raise a family of what? a stay at home husband and 2 children? 3 children 4 children? How big is the family that I as the busness owner needs to provide enough wages to provide this "support".

Walmart cashiers are so essential that my walmart has 8 self checkout registers. Meaning that walmart cashiers a providing a non essential service. They are providing a service that an eightyear old child can provide. And for this they deserve for walmart to fully support their family when they work for them full time? Really?

You simply would hire another part-timer instead of using a full-time employee.

I believe that the minimum wage should actually be a salary predicated upon full-time employment indexed to 150% of the current poverty line for a family of three. That would currently be a salary of $28,635/year for any full-time employment. I would suggest that, with proper financial management, such an income could even sustain a family of four. This is also assuming fully socialized basic healthcare, or course.

I'm not necessarily saying that they deserve $28,635/year for what they are doing, but it's really difficult to quantify what anyone, "Deserves," with respect to employment and the actual job they do. If you look at the revenue I bring the hotel, for example, you could argue that I should make double what I make, if you look just at the time I spend here, I should be at 125% of my current level...but in terms of actual difficulty (at least, for me) I should quite possibly be paid less.

"Deserves," is a very difficult term to use, though, when speaking Macro-Economically. Also, people get up in arms about lower wage workers not, "Deserving," more money than they already make...but I maintain that many of these people would say the same thing if the people in question only made half of that. Prior to the larger of recent minimum wage increases, you'd have people who said McDonald's employees didn't deserve $5.15/hour.

It's a bit of a conundrum because you have many Conservatives who don't believe in social welfare OR paying wages that could sustain a family. These same people will also preach about getting multiple jobs while completely ignoring the unemployment level and not understanding that one person working two jobs means that someone else isn't working one. We also have a labor situation in which one employer may not be willing to work around the schedule of another employer, that sort of thing. All of this while complaining about existant or expanding welfare programs.

You have complaining about unwed Mothers who cannot make enough money to support themselves being eligible for certain social programs and, "Living off of the State," some Conservatives that complain about such Mothers are also Pro-Life. Now, how the Hell can a person be pro-Life, but against the welfare system?

Answer: I'm for personal responsibility!

Great, be for personal responsibility, but in this little thing we have called reality not everyone is responsible, so how are we to deal with that?

How can a person be Pro-Life and simultaneously want to reduce social welfare? There has never been an answer to that question from a person that believes that way that has been able to satisfy me. Such a Conservative complains about personal responsibility, and when the individual in question is ready to finally make a responsible decision (abortion) the Conservative is now against the responsible decision.

I've known and been friends with many Conservatives, though, and I assure you that they will accept food stamps just as soon as anyone else when the question becomes about whether or not they or their families are going to go hungry.

Basically, a child can go hungry, live in poor housing, not afford quality education or educational materials and essentially have very little chance of success in life, that way the cycle of poverty continues to self-replicate when that child has children...but God forbid if the child is terminated in the womb before he is in anyway cognizant of the horrendous conditions in which some Conservatives would have him live.

Quote: AZDuffman

Non sequitur. Laws of the marketplace were there before the first government existed. A caveman needed an ax but was not good at making one. Another had good hunting skills but wasn't a good craftsman. So the ax was traded for some food. This is the first law of a marketplace, "Without a deal that benefits both sides no deal will be made."

Who enforced the agreement between said cavemen? Once the hunter had his ax, what prevented him from keeping all the spoils?

Quote: AZDuffman

This law of the marketplace was proven in the 1970s when the feds tried to regulate the price of oil. When the price was set too low few suppliers showed up.

I think we can agree that there are some rules that are just plain clunkers. Price ceilings are one of them.

Quote: AZDuffman

The laws of economics exist everywhere from your corner store to a prison. And they are of higher importance than the laws a government can make as the later can be avoided but the former cannot.

Your premise is wrong.

Quote: AZDuffman

When one gets out of the Faculty Lounge and into the real world one learns this.

Again, you're wrong. Faculty lounge or flea market, without laws to govern the market, it all falls apart. There is no market, only chaos.

Quote: s2dbaker

Who enforced the agreement between said cavemen? Once the hunter had his ax, what prevented him from keeping all the spoils?

Sure, he could keep them if he wanted. But good luck making any kind of deal anytime in the future. Or maybe there were some spoils in advance. My point is plenty of markets existed long before there were any laws to regulate them. Who regulated trading posts on the frontier? Indian walks in and wants beads for a ceremony. Paleface walks in and wants buffalo hide to sell back east. Trade was made no matter what.

Quote:

Faculty lounge or flea market, without laws to govern the market, it all falls apart. There is no market, only chaos.

Incorrect. Markets are a natural function of human behavior. Man is a social creature and no person can make all they need to survive. No small group can, either. People will always find ways to trade amongst themselves, and many are orderly. In fact, the only way laws help is to prevent one person from outright stealing from another. Laws cannot provide supply or demand.

Quote: Mission146

You simply would hire another part-timer instead of using a full-time employee.

I believe that the minimum wage should actually be a salary predicated upon full-time employment indexed to 150% of the current poverty line for a family of three. That would currently be a salary of $28,635/year for any full-time employment. I would suggest that, with proper financial management, such an income could even sustain a family of four. This is also assuming fully socialized basic healthcare, or course.

I'm not necessarily saying that they deserve $28,635/year for what they are doing, but it's really difficult to quantify what anyone, "Deserves," with respect to employment and the actual job they do. If you look at the revenue I bring the hotel, for example, you could argue that I should make double what I make, if you look just at the time I spend here, I should be at 125% of my current level...but in terms of actual difficulty (at least, for me) I should quite possibly be paid less.

"Deserves," is a very difficult term to use, though, when speaking Macro-Economically. Also, people get up in arms about lower wage workers not, "Deserving," more money than they already make...but I maintain that many of these people would say the same thing if the people in question only made half of that. Prior to the larger of recent minimum wage increases, you'd have people who said McDonald's employees didn't deserve $5.15/hour.

It's a bit of a conundrum because you have many Conservatives who don't believe in social welfare OR paying wages that could sustain a family. These same people will also preach about getting multiple jobs while completely ignoring the unemployment level and not understanding that one person working two jobs means that someone else isn't working one. We also have a labor situation in which one employer may not be willing to work around the schedule of another employer, that sort of thing. All of this while complaining about existant or expanding welfare programs.

You have complaining about unwed Mothers who cannot make enough money to support themselves being eligible for certain social programs and, "Living off of the State," some Conservatives that complain about such Mothers are also Pro-Life. Now, how the Hell can a person be pro-Life, but against the welfare system?

Answer: I'm for personal responsibility!

Great, be for personal responsibility, but in this little thing we have called reality not everyone is responsible, so how are we to deal with that?

How can a person be Pro-Life and simultaneously want to reduce social welfare? There has never been an answer to that question from a person that believes that way that has been able to satisfy me. Such a Conservative complains about personal responsibility, and when the individual in question is ready to finally make a responsible decision (abortion) the Conservative is now against the responsible decision.

I've known and been friends with many Conservatives, though, and I assure you that they will accept food stamps just as soon as anyone else when the question becomes about whether or not they or their families are going to go hungry.

Basically, a child can go hungry, live in poor housing, not afford quality education or educational materials and essentially have very little chance of success in life, that way the cycle of poverty continues to self-replicate when that child has children...but God forbid if the child is terminated in the womb before he is in anyway cognizant of the horrendous conditions in which some Conservatives would have him live.

Well ok kathy, you are a great worker and I know you want extra hours, but if I give you those extra hours I will be penalized and forced to pay you more than the business can afford to pay you per hour because full time people get an extra 4 dollars an hour for doing the same work.. So I will decline your request and do something that will at least hurt the business at the beginning. I will hire a brand new part time person and train them as they go, There will be some customers service issues that ensue with new people like slower service or preparing the wrong order. But we wil suffer thru it for a couple of weeks.


Secondly....abortion is legal last I looked. So irresponsible people can legally terminate if they cant afford to support a family. IF conservatives were upholding a law that made abortions illegal....then I would agree with your comments. But it really doesnt matter what conservatives think about abortion. Reality is.... the law is on the side of people who want to do the responsible thing and realize they cannot afford to support a family. Alot of these people having and keeping children without the ability to support them are not concervatives. They couldnt care less what conservatives are saying. They have no desire to please the conservatives. So the conservatives can say what they want about abortion They can be pro life.....but REALITY is that abortions are legal and non conservative people are not getting them. SO instead we supposedly need a plan where business pays for these ill conceived families....for the irresponsibility of individuals. The govt pays for the irresponsible people some of who have more kids in order to get increased handouts.

Through the schols funded by govt, through community programs funded by the govt, young people are highly educated on sex, birth control, STDs, way more than I was educated on the matter in the 60's. People are shown in schools how to use condoms, birth control is often available for free for people, shows on tv have shown the hardship of trying to be a teen parent. With all this , with the govt providing all this education and preventatives...you are saying business should be supporting families no matter how meanial the job.

I am an offspring of immigrant parents.....I dint grow up with alot of money, and still I knew enough to wait till i can afford a family...before having a family. i DIDNT NEED CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS TO GUIDE ME. I figured it out all on my own.

Quote: LarryS

Sounds like my family. Mom stayed home and dad worked many many hours. He was gone before I woke up and was home after I went to sleep. My parents and most parents of my generation believed in sacrifice for the family good. They didnt have all the new gadgets of the day, they didnt go out "clubbing" during the week and on weekends while grandma watched me. No expensive dinners out, no expensive vacations. They lived for their children. they lived for the family.They didnt expect someone else to support their family.

I think there's some truth to what you say and some rose colored memories. My home life was nearly identical to yours, in never buying on credit or buying more house than they could afford; they started from nothing, my dad worked, my mother didn't. But in buying power, salaries/wages, and especially the minimum wage, grew relative to the CPI until about 1968, it stagnated, and since has been slowly eroding at less than the price of inflation and cost of goods.



This was current in 2006, and we all knew what happened in 2007-present; this problem has only gotten worse in those years.

Quote: AZDuffman

There will always be a few at the top of society doing well at the seemingly "expense of the worker." .

Seemingly?

Nowadays, you hear mention of the "minimum wage" and "living wage", but if you start going back in the news archives you start seeing the expression "starvation wage".

How low will they go....employers, if left to the market forces alone? Pretty damn low.

Quote: LarryS

Well ok kathy, you are a great worker and I know you want extra hours, but if I give you those extra hours I will be penalized and forced to pay you more than the business can afford to pay you per hour because full time people get an extra 4 dollars an hour for doing the same work.. So I will decline your request and do something that will at least hurt the business at the beginning. I will hire a brand new part time person and train them as they go, There will be some customers service issues that ensue with new people like slower service or preparing the wrong order. But we wil suffer thru it for a couple of weeks.

That kind of gets us back to the subject of people not being worth more than what they make. Assuming Kathy works 25 hours per week now, the cost of training someone for forty hours at minimum wage and the cost of giving Kathy, who already knows the job, a $0.25/hour raise is approximately the same...and that's assuming you only have to train one replacement worker that year. If you end up running through two additional employees, then you might as well have given Kathy a $0.50/hour raise. So, there's your defense of menial employees being paid more money, for starters.

Secondly, I never said anything about not giving Kathy MORE hours, we're just talking about making her full-time or not making her full-time. There's nothing saying that you can't work her an amount of hours just short of full-time, pretty common grocery store practice, in my experience when I was younger.

Quote:

Secondly....abortion is legal last I looked. So irresponsible people can legally terminate if they cant afford to support a family. IF conservatives were upholding a law that made abortions illegal....then I would agree with your comments. But it really doesnt matter what conservatives think about abortion. Reality is.... the law is on the side of people who want to do the responsible thing and realize they cannot afford to support a family. Alot of these people having and keeping children without the ability to support them are not concervatives. They couldnt care less what conservatives are saying. They have no desire to please the conservatives. So the conservatives can say what they want about abortion They can be pro life.....but REALITY is that abortions are legal and non conservative people are not getting them. SO instead we supposedly need a plan where business pays for these ill conceived families....for the irresponsibility of individuals. The govt pays for the irresponsible people some of who have more kids in order to get increased handouts.

I'm just speaking in terms of some Conservatives having inherently self-contradictory values and opinions on certain matters. It's tough for me to take an individual who holds self-contradictory values such as those very seriously, but you may be pro-choice yourself, I have no idea where you stand on that.

The other thing is that, given the current state of affairs, it's either going to be the Government or the businesses that are going to be propping these individuals up as the only alternative is starvation, for some. If you really think about it, the businesses and the wealthy individuals are the ones propping such people up, anyway, because the main source of Government revenues is taxation. The businesses are already being taxed (along with the middle-class and wealthy) in order for the Government to be propping these people up in the first place. Given that this is already the case, the business could at least get some value out of the money, that's going to be taken from them anyway, by creating more jobs and paying employees livable wages as the money will come from them one way or the other.

Quote:

Through the schols funded by govt, through community programs funded by the govt, young people are highly educated on sex, birth control, STDs, way more than I was educated on the matter in the 60's. People are shown in schools how to use condoms, birth control is often available for free for people, shows on tv have shown the hardship of trying to be a teen parent. With all this , with the govt providing all this education and preventatives...you are saying business should be supporting families no matter how meanial the job.

Unfortunately, and I do mean unfortunately, the entire paragraph above is irrelevant. I've already stated that everyone exercising personal responsibility and restraint would be ideal, that's just not what actually happens in many cases.

Quote:

I am an offspring of immigrant parents.....I dint grow up with alot of money, and still I knew enough to wait till i can afford a family...before having a family. i DIDNT NEED CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS TO GUIDE ME. I figured it out all on my own.

Cool, you exercised personal responsibility. Me too, for the most part, would have liked to have had more in savings before having a child, but I got fairly lucky and haven't ended up in a desperate situation, yet. My savings and investments have slightly improved since my first child was born, but if (for some reason) I lost my job and absolutely could not find one, I'm probably only good for six-nine months.

Quote: Mission146

Yup. One only needs to read about working conditions in the beginning years of the industrial revolution for proof of that, or to read about working situations in countries in which the worker is in even worse shape than America.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire happened just over a century ago. Without better rules for the marketplace, that disaster could happen every year. In places where there are no rules, it does.

Ironically, people in sweat shop conditions are probably working harder than most of us ever will. They sure aren't lazy. I don't know all the reasons they may not move on or get better training, but it seems odd to want to create these conditions for someone who is far from a welfare cheat laying about at home living off the state. If you create an economy where this happens, on purpose....well, I don't understand. How could you be for that?

Quote: Mission146

That kind of gets us back to the subject of people not being worth more than what they make. Assuming Kathy works 25 hours per week now, the cost of training someone for forty hours at minimum wage and the cost of giving Kathy, who already knows the job, a $0.25/hour raise is approximately the same...and that's assuming you only have to train one replacement worker that year. If you end up running through two additional employees, then you might as well have given Kathy a $0.50/hour raise. So, there's your defense of menial employees being paid more money, for starters.

Secondly, I never said anything about not giving Kathy MORE hours, we're just talking about making her full-time or not making her full-time. There's nothing saying that you can't work her an amount of hours just short of full-time, pretty common grocery store practice, in my experience when I was younger.




I'm just speaking in terms of some Conservatives having inherently self-contradictory values and opinions on certain matters. It's tough for me to take an individual who holds self-contradictory values such as those very seriously, but you may be pro-choice yourself, I have no idea where you stand on that.

The other thing is that, given the current state of affairs, it's either going to be the Government or the businesses that are going to be propping these individuals up as the only alternative is starvation, for some. If you really think about it, the businesses and the wealthy individuals are the ones propping such people up, anyway, because the main source of Government revenues is taxation. The businesses are already being taxed (along with the middle-class and wealthy) in order for the Government to be propping these people up in the first place. Given that this is already the case, the business could at least get some value out of the money, that's going to be taken from them anyway, by creating more jobs and paying employees livable wages as the money will come from them one way or the other.



Unfortunately, and I do mean unfortunately, the entire paragraph above is irrelevant. I've already stated that everyone exercising personal responsibility and restraint would be ideal, that's just not what actually happens in many cases.


Cool, you exercised personal responsibility. Me too, for the most part, would have liked to have had more in savings before having a child, but I got fairly lucky and haven't ended up in a desperate situation, yet. My savings and investments have slightly improved since my first child was born, but if (for some reason) I lost my job and absolutely could not find one, I'm probably only good for six-nine months.

If she is making 8.50 and hour, according to your 26k support a family welfare plan..i would have to raise her hourly rate 4 extra dollars. So its a bad deal for her because she wants the full time hours, and its a bad deal for the business who has to train a new person and often live through ineffciencies and customer services issues. A workforce full of part time people working 28 hours a week is not great for an exconomy. Especially if those 28 hours limits their ability to find another part time job. If a 8.50 job becomes a 12.50/hr job just by adding a few extra hours to a persons schedule is a form of welfare that a business has to pay in your 26k minimum wage world of supporting a family.



you are resigned to the fact that large sectors of the population are behaving irresopnsibly even with higher govt education. So therefore someone has to pay for it all. Why couldnt welfare be like unemployment....where all able bodied people get a fund to use in a lifetime, or a 10 year period. If they use it up in 3 years....too bad...try to get help from friends or relatives. This way we dont get generations of families living off welfare. They cant use the excuse that its better to be on welfare than get a minimum wage job.....if the minimum wage job helps stop the meter from running on their diminishing fund of benefits. Or as years go by the benefits start becoing less and less....so that they feel the squeeze and go get a job.(rahter than just cutting them off cold turkey at some point). I would think it would be the individuals responsibility to deal withthese issues and not he responsibility of my business.

I think we need to start incentivizing the poor to not have children they can't afford. Let's pay people not to create more burdens on society.

Quote: DRich

I think we need to start incentivizing the poor to not have children they can't afford. Let's pay people not to create more burdens on society.

I agree, thats why i suggest that every have access to a welfare pot of money that they can use for a 10 year period. If u have childen...and need more money..it comes out of that pot of money. Right now welfare give people access to a bottomless pot of money.

If they tell people this is the money available to you....and each 6 months, the checks you get are going to be 10 percent less.......eventually after a couple of 10 percent cuts, people wont be thinking of having children...they will be thinking of how to get a job so that they can live better.

Quote: rxwine

Seemingly?

Nowadays, you hear mention of the "minimum wage" and "living wage", but if you start going back in the news archives you start seeing the expression "starvation wage".

How low will they go....employers, if left to the market forces alone? Pretty damn low.

Employers will usually pay the lowest someone is willing to work for, this is how a market works. Currently in many places this is a rate ABOVE the minimum wage. Some employers such as Costco will pay a higher amount so they have the pick of the litter for workers as more people will apply to work there. But at some point nobody will apply.

You cannot regulate higher wages to unskilled workers. As I have said before, a worker will not continue to be employed unless they are producing 3-4xs their labor cost to the employer.

Quote: AZDuffman

You cannot regulate higher wages to unskilled workers. As I have said before, a worker will not continue to be employed unless they are producing 3-4xs their labor cost to the employer.

You CAN regulate higher wages to unskilled workers. It is called the minimum wage. In my neck of the woods (suburban Buffalo) market forces ARE controlling low end wages. As it should be. Local fast food restaurants have big signs up looking for help paying ABOVE minimum wage. My guess is that they are doing it to attract workers to work for them, not out of any social good concept to pay them a wage they can raise a family on.

As far as Mission's feeling that pro life conservatives are self contradictory, I feel your analysis is faulty. First of all, I am very much pro choice. But if you believe that abortion is murder, then your FIRST thought is that it should be illegal. The financial considerations would be secondary. As an example, if we just burned down all the mental institutions and prisons with the people inside, think how much money society would save? Would you say that a conservative would be contradictory to not be for that plan, too?

As someone who has worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the last 30 years, I am not convinced that the living wage as it is called, should be figured using 40 hours as the multiplier. I work with a bunch of nurses at my hospital (they make around $60k per year), most of whom either will do extra fill in shifts for sick calls. Others have second one or two day a week part time shifts at other institutions. Another waits tables one night a week. Another bartends. Tell one of these ladies that the wage for someone who did not get the training or education to advance should be propped up artificially at HER cost, because whatever employer has to pay the higher costs will pass it on to HER.

Quote: Beethoven9th

+1

This article cracks me up: Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

The idiot organizers are demanding $15/hr for fast food workers. Is flipping burgers really worth $15/hr??? I hope fast food restaurants make everything automated and fire these people.

Then again, if that happened, they'd probably start demanding $15/hr for staying at home.

Can you imagine the prices if they did make $15 an hour. I went to McDs for lunch last week. I bought a bigmac value meal and made it large. It was over $7. Even though the price is listed on the board I was shocked when she gave me my total. It is almost cheaper for the 3 of us to go to Applebees and do the 2 for $20