Minimum wage

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 149
--> @Christen
Even if the current minimum wage was not enough to survive on without government assistance, who does raising the minimum wage help though?
The people making it and that have to live off of it.

We have the employers, the people currently making minimum wage, the people making more than minimum wage, and people who have no job.
Raising the minimum wage hurts employers who already pay their employees the current minimum wage since they are now forced to give up more of their money so that employees can make more money, or risk going out of business.
Yes, it sure is a shame employers have to pay people for labor. 🙄

It doesn't help those who already make more than the minimum wage.
Depends. If you make more than the current minimum wage, but less than the proposed minimum wage, you benefit. And while it doesn't directly help people making much more than the minimum wage, it at least acts as a level of insurance: if wage cuts come around, there is a maximum that they can be cut. It's like saying a safety net doesn't help the trapeze artist.

It doesn't help those who have no job to begin with, such as homeless people, and those looking for work experience; it would only make it harder for those people to get jobs since employers would have to pay them all this extra money to hire them, and decide it isn't worth it.
Over the near century of minimum wage laws, this does not seem to be an endemic problem. Why do you keep bringing it up?

This leaves us with the last group of people who the minimum wage affects: those already making the current minimum wage.
If the minimum wage gets raised, it will help them if employers are both willing and able to pay them that extra money, but hurt them if the employer is either unwilling or unable to pay them that extra money.
Again, this does not seem to be a significant problem in light of the past 80 years. Why do you keep bringing it up?

If we try a few of my other solutions, like cutting down on careless government spending so we have more money to help those earning minimum wage, it would help more people overall than raising the minimum wage would.
I've already agreed that, if things change and there is no need for a higher minimum wage it shouldn't be increased. That is not the current state of affairs.
--> @drafterman
There are still people today that are homeless and cannot find work. There are still people today that could use the work experience and the few dollars.
What's a minimum wage increase supposed to do for these people? The people who need the most help? Employers are not likely going to want to hire these homeless people, especially for such a high wage.
Homelessness is a problem, especially for places like California and Seattle. How many more homeless people will it take for this to become "a significant problem"?




Over the past few years, Seattle has become a dumping ground for millions of pounds of garbage, needles, feces, and biohazardous waste, largely emanating from the hundreds of homeless encampments that have sprouted across the city… Last year saw a 400 percent increase in HIV infections among mostly homeless addicts and prostitutes in the city’s northern corridor. Public-health officials are sounding the alarms about the return of diseases like typhus, tuberculosis, and trench fever.

How do people become homeless?
Top reasons people become homeless:

31% job loss
20% drugs or alcohol use
15% divorce or separation
13% an argument with a family member who asked them to leave
7% domestic violence
10% eviction
7% mental health
7% physical health or medical condition
12% incarceration
1% housing restrictions due to probation or parole

What could prevent homelessness?

When asked what would have prevented their homelessness, respondents reported:

34% employment assistance
31% rental assistance
28% drug or alcohol counseling
19% mental health services

--> @Christen
There are still people today that are homeless and cannot find work. There are still people today that could use the work experience and the few dollars. What's a minimum wage increase supposed to do for these people? The people who need the most help?
The notion that these people are homeless and out of work simply because employers can't afford to pay them is unsubstantiated. People are homeless for a variety of reasons many of which having absolutely nothing to do with money (mental illness, stigma against former criminals, lack of adoption of kids) and those that involve things like unaffordable housing which increasing minimwage wage most certainly would help.

Employers are not likely going to want to hire these homeless people, especially for such a high wage.
You made this up.

Homelessness is a problem, especially for places like California and Seattle. How many more homeless people will it take for this to become "a significant problem"?

Homelessness is not caused by minimum wage. You made that up.

Ctrl-F
"Minimum Wage"
0/0 

Try again.

I thought we talked about you making things up.
--> @drafterman
People are homeless for a variety of reasons many of which having absolutely nothing to do with money
And yet you want the minimum wage to be raised which will make it even harder for them to get back into jobs and start earning money.

Also, homelessness does have a lot to do with money. Homelessness happens when people don't have the money to pay for a place to live, and they can't find someone who is both willing and able to take them in.

those that involve things like unaffordable housing which increasing minimwage wage most certainly would help.
These are people who don't have jobs to begin with. Minimum wage increases only help those who already have jobs, whose employers are both willing and able to pay them that extra money.
--> @Christen
I'm not sure I understand the point of this objection. Minimum wage doesn't literally help every single person in the country, ergo we shouldn't have it? Is that what you're saying?
--> @drafterman
We shouldn't have it if it's doing more harm than good.
It should not be forced upon everyone either.
--> @Christen
We shouldn't have it if it's doing more harm than good.
It isn't. Can we move on, then?
--> @drafterman
It isn't.
How do you know it isn't?
--> @Christen
Only standard of living is relevant.  Economics is irrelevant.

Does the mother charge the baby for her milk? Does the mother charge the baby a birthing fee?

Does the father charge a fee to his children for his fatherly functions.

Humanity is a family of humans, sustained by an ecology and the ecology does not charge humans for their existence, even as humans abuse the ecology. Go figure. Then refigure agin and again and again till you get it figured out correctly.




--> @ebuc
the ecology does not charge humans for their existence
Humans have to give up one thing or another to maintain their existence though, whether it's money, time, or labor.

Sure the mother may not charge the baby for her milk, but eventually the baby will grow up and have to fend for itself, and it will need time, money, and/or labor to do so.

Ecologies still require maintenance, and in our society, you need labor (people to produce goods/services), time (to produce goods/services), and whatever you're willing to trade for those goods/services, which would in this case be money.
--> @drafterman, @Athias, @ebuc, @Nemiroff
I just thought of a solution that I believe the people who are both pro-minimum wage, and anti-minimum wage, would like.

We will do what drafterman wants, which is to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs of living, but, we will also make it so that employees can sign a legal waiver (which can be renewable) to temporarily waive their right to be paid that minimum, and legally allow employers to pay them, specifically, an amount lower than the minimum wage if the employer chooses to do so. That way, employees can still be paid a living/survivable wage if they want/need the extra money, while we also ensure that nobody accidentally gets priced out of the market who still wants to keep their job.

Does that seem like a fair compromise?

Better yet, we will keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs/needs, but we will also give employees the option to donate a certain amount of non-taxable money that they get, in their paycheck, back into the business, which improves it, and would also guarantee that people who keep their jobs are not priced out, while also allowing those people who need that extra money to benefit off of it and put it towards savings, emergencies, and other various costs.

That too seems like a viable option. After all, drafterman did say that "If you want to have less money you can always donate it or throw it away."
--> @Christen
Whether they agree to get paid less or if they return some of the money, the end result is the same so i will treat them as identical for the time being.

My only question is, who exactly is getting priced out? The generally maligned "burger flippers" are plenty employed. Who is being priced out, and how many people relative to the economy are we talking about?

Also, what protections will there be for people who do not want to work for sub par wages to ensure they dont get undercut, because regardless of value or profitability, if an entity can pay someone less they try to do that. 
--> @Nemiroff
Just because they "are plenty employed" and that unemployment is still low doesn't mean that nobody got priced out, nor does it mean that nobody had their hours reduced, profit margins go down, or prices raised, to compensate for the wage increase.

In all, 4.3 million workers are slated to receive a hike as they earn less than the new minimum wage in their respective states. Well, that’s what’s meant to happen. Judging by the fallout from recent hikes, it seems things aren’t going according to plan.

Minimum Wage Massacre
In February, Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright said the firm expects wages to rise at least 4% in 2017. Wendy’s has three options to offset the rising costs.

First, they could cut margins, but with an 8% margin, that’s unlikely. The second option is to raise prices. Given how price-sensitive consumers are these days, that too is a non-starter. Finally, the firm could reduce the amount of labor they use… and that’s exactly what they did. Wendy’s eliminated 31 hours of labor per location, per week.

However, their locations are just as busy. To keep output steady, they are planning to install automated kiosks in 16% of their locations by the end of 2017. David Trimm, Wendy’s CIO said the timeframe for payback on the machines would be less than two years, thanks to labor savings.

Market leader McDonald’s has also been automating. Last November, the firm said every one of its 14,000 US stores will be replacing cashiers with automated kiosks. McDonald’s has actually prioritized these changes in locations like Seattle and New York that have higher minimum wages.



For companies, paying entry-level, unskilled workers the same they would pay a manager or a seasoned employee doesn’t make any sense—not because employers aren’t compassionate but because they would have to pull in more money to afford these high wages.
When governments force them to pay unskilled workers more, they necessarily have to cut costs somewhere to avoid losing money. After all, the goal is staying open and profitable. If the employer is losing money, he or she can’t pay anyone anything.
The way they find to cut costs is to cut the number of employees on payroll. And precisely because labor laws are already so suffocating, employers must use other excuses to fire employees, as “I can’t afford paying you and hundreds of others the minimum wage” is not enough of an excuse.
Of course, workers who fought for the minimum wage increase feel they are being unfairly targeted. But the reality is that what’s missing is some basic understanding of economics, which would help them realize that simply increasing the minimum wage by decree does nothing but limit the labor market, hurting the unskilled and the poor more than any other groups.


So, apparently, the reason we don't see much more people getting fired due to a minimum wage increase is because some law is protecting them from that, as you can see from what i've highlighted in bold and underlined. Employers are being blocked from firing employees that they can no longer afford to keep paying, so they must find other ways to maintain their profit margins which is to reduce hours or raise prices.

So it isn't the minimum wage law, specifically, that is causing this problem; it's this law protecting workers from being fired because their employers can no longer afford to keep paying them the new minimum wage that was raised by the minimum wage law that's causing the problem.

If that's the case, then all that does is make the problem even worse.

Eventually some businesses will stop hiring new employees and start investing in automation, and then, regardless if the minimum wage increase causes this or not, a minimum wage increase certainly won't fix the problem, and it will be pointless to raise the minimum wage by then, since those people won't have a job anyways, and neither will new young people entering the job market.
--> @Christen
Humans have to give up one thing or another to maintain their existence though, whether it's money, time, or labor.
Minimum wage does not equal minimal effort. Your confusing the two.

Ecologies still require maintenance, and in our society, you need labor (people to produce goods/services), time (to produce goods/services), and whatever you're willing to trade for those goods/services, which would in this case be money.
The fish have always been free and ecology has never charged a fee for the fish.  Only the middle men charge a  fee and all of to often that fee is not based on any real value rather a false narrative value called economics.

Sure the mother may not charge the baby for her milk, but eventually the baby will grow up and have to fend for itself, and it will need time, money, and/or labor to do so.
Your still cluelss. "may" is incorrect assessment The mother never charges a fee to the baby for her millk.  Try again to go figure and please try and use some rational, logical common sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only standard of living is relevant.  Economics is irrelevant.




--> @Christen
Those are terrible plans, and often unnecessary. 

Generally, states have tiered minimum wage laws, so small businesses aren't required to pay the full minimum wage. In MN, it is $8.04, as opposed to $9.86. However, no one pays that, because no one will work for that. 

What I have noticed with the topic of wages is that it is not an issue of employers screwing over their labor staff, but other employees doing this. Labor is a commodity, subject to supply and demand, and would-be employees are in direct competition with each other. Faulting a business for hiring Mr. X who asked for $15/hr instead of Mr. Y who asked for $20/hr is the same argument for faulting a business (or even a consumer) for having a service provided for them by the cheaper service provider. Some expenses (services or labor) require a premium to ensure good work, but a minimum wage sets the floor for entry, thus setting for the floor for expectations. 

Minimum wages and living wages do not address the issues people think they do. According to the BLS, the vast majority of those making minimum wage do not work 30 hrs/week. Raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" is still not a living wage to these people. It helps, sure, but they are still in poverty.

Most minimum wage jobs are unskilled positions, and are filled with people who are generally unskilled. As wages go up, these people are put into competition with other, more skilled/motivated, laborers and the result is that certain individuals are put at greater risk when increasing the minimum wage. This is further compounded when you factor in technology and businesses making the decision to trim the labor fat, since it is more expensive now. In my area, this is seen by fewer cashiers at the grocery store (opting for self-service checkouts), less staff at burger joints during rushes, and a more aggressive cutting of hours of non-peak time. This puts more stress and responsibility on the employee, and some employees cannot keep up, and thus, will find themselves chronically unemployed. 

Lastly, since minimum wages set the floor for labor, it helps in keeping big business big. It creates a very real and tangible barrier for entry into the market for new businesses, or existing ones that want to hire help to expand their business. The larger the company, the more they can absorb costs due to economies of scale. Raising prices is not always a viable solution for the small employer, and small employers pay less for labor than their larger competitors.
--> @ebuc
What I'm saying is, while the fish doesn't charge you to fish it, and while ecology doesn't charge the fish to live, different species still work together to maintain an ecosystem.

The sun gives off heat energy. Plants take the time to turn that energy into food. Water helps the plants grow. Primary Consumers, Herbivores, and Omnivores take the time to locate those plants and eat them. Secondary Consumers and Carnivores then work to hunt down and eat the Primary Consumers so they survive. All of the plants, Primary Consumers, and Secondary Consumers then reproduce to make up for whatever is lost. There is also a limited supply of certain resources, so some species then have to compete with each other. Money is not involved in these cases, but time and effort still are.

What that baby got for free (which is the milk), the mother had to take the time to work for. The mother would have had to eat right, drink, sleep well, and take care of herself so she could produce that milk for the baby to begin with.

What part of that am I "clueless" about?
--> @Mage-CPA
So the problem isn't that minimum wages are going up (even though it's part of the problem) but rather the real problem is that too many people are growing up unskilled to begin with, and that there aren't enough skilled people.

It makes sense because, like you said, more and more unskilled people are being forced to compete with skilled people. I'm thinking if those unskilled people started becoming more skilled, it would be easier for them to make a decent wage, and harder for them to get replaced or priced out.

Part of the problem could also be that most people nowadays like to condition themselves to do only the bare minimum amount of work required to get by, which could be why so many people choose simple, low-paying unskilled jobs in the first place. It makes sense to these people because, why put in all that extra effort to get by when you could just as easily get by with far less effort through a simple low-skilled job?

However, as the years go by and minimum wages go up, that "bare minimum" amount of work required also goes up, and those who have been conditioned their whole lives to do what once was the bare minimum amount required to get by, but now have to do even more work, are going to struggle to compete with those who are already used to doing more than the bare minimum.

As the years go by, unskilled cheap labor becomes less valuable and replaced by robots, while skilled labor becomes more valuable.

If unskilled people don't start developing marketable skills soon, they will eventually be priced out regardless if the minimum wage increases or not.

One of my solutions to combat this, back in post #86, was to improve our education system so that people learn valuable skills and don't have to be stuck with useless college degrees, suffering from student loan debt, all while working a low-skilled job. Most of what people (including myself) learn in both school and college, especially in history-based classes, are useless facts that they will never use in their lives, as opposed to learning more valuable things that can really help them later on in their lives.

You have so many people graduating, not knowing valuable skills, who instead learned/memorized useless facts, and the only thing their "skilled" at is memorizing and scoring well on standardized mutiple-choice tests, which doesn't help them get into a good-paying job, and keeps them stuck in low skilled low paying jobs.
--> @Christen
What I'm saying is, while the fish doesn't charge you to fish it, and while ecology doesn't charge the fish to live, different species still work together to maintain an ecosystem.
I already addressed that you ignore it because  you dont get it aka clueless.

Minimum effort does not equate as minimum wage.  People actually fish for fun even if they dont need the fish.

People do not work for minimum wage because  its fun.

What that baby got for free (which is the milk), the mother had to take the time to work for.
Fishing is fun for most humans irrespective of whether or not they fish for nutrition of just for fun of it.

The mother would have had to eat right, drink, sleep well, and take care of herself so she could produce that milk for the baby to begin with.
Mother breast feed irrespective of you above. Your still clueless.

The sun gives off heat energy.
Free. .......Clueless

Plants take the time to turn that energy into food.
Ecologically is free,  .....clueless.

Water helps the plants grow.
Water is free....clueless

Primary Consumers, Herbivores, and Omnivores take the time to locate those plants and eat them.
No fees applied....cluelesss

Secondary Consumers and Carnivores then work to hunt down and eat the Primary Consumers so they survive.All of the plants, Primary Consumers, and Secondary Consumers then reproduce to make up for whatever is lost.
No fee or minimum wage is relevant. Minimal effort does not equal minimum wage.

There is also a limited supply of certain resources, so some species then have to compete with each other. Money is not involved in these cases, but time and effort still are.
Earth and sun are finite, yes indeed, you finally have got 1 out of 10 correct.




--> @Christen
I just thought of a solution that I believe the people who are both pro-minimum wage, and anti-minimum wage, would like.

We will do what drafterman wants, which is to keep increasing the minimum wage to keep up with costs of living, but, we will also make it so that employees can sign a legal waiver (which can be renewable) to temporarily waive their right to be paid that minimum, and legally allow employers to pay them, specifically, an amount lower than the minimum wage if the employer chooses to do so. That way, employees can still be paid a living/survivable wage if they want/need the extra money, while we also ensure that nobody accidentally gets priced out of the market who still wants to keep their job.

The issue with this, Christen, is that it would essentially price out the existing minimum-wage employees. Rather than nullify the effect of the minimum wage, it would instead reverse it, seeing immense underemployment among those who are employed at the minimum. Your notion is to legalize the already existing under the table employment of below-minimum wage workers, but employers naturally regulate the volume of their hires so as to not rouse suspicion. Make it legal, and employees working at the minimum would be a moot point. (And, I'm all for that, by the way.)

Just an aside, this is the reason the narrative surrounding "wage-gap" is nonsensical. If women were performing equal work for less pay, they would have priced men out the market decades ago. If one were to make below minimum-wage work legal, then it doesn't matter if it's tiered, the trend would move toward below minimum wage work (of course this is in context of low-skilled labor.)
--> @Athias
We already have seen the effects in Seattle at only $15. The data is in. Fewer jobs. Fewer hours offered.
--> @Greyparrot
We already have seen the effects in Seattle at only $15. The data is in. Fewer jobs. Fewer hours offered.
I often stray away from contests over data because "data" can be conceived for almost anything--even for the labor market of Seattle. Often data are mere snapshots of isolated circumstances. It's the reasoning, I believe, which matters most. The minimum wage creates unemployment much like an age limit at a bar alienates younger customers. If the law requires I impose a 21 and above age limit at my bar, tautologically, that means everyone below the age 21 cannot legally enter. If one imposes a minimum wage of 15 dollars, tautologically, those who generate commerce at $14.99 and below cannot legally work.

At best, those who support the minimum wage believe that either the minimum wage is always commensurate to the productivity generated by low-skilled workers (a claim that has yet to be substantiated) or that the productivity of low-skilled work is irrelevant and that the provision of one's means is more important than an employer's profit. I suspect the latter is more prominent, though neither are sound rationales.
--> @Alec
This probably is unrelated, but...

Yang2020!

--> @DynamicSquid
Matriarchal ' Yin ' 2020.

Thousands of years of patriarchal ' Yang 'ness is half of the reason humanity is increasingly posioning the ecological environment  that sustains them.

Patriarchal nurturing is 2ndary in their nature.

Nurturing primary in the matriarchal.

The early on Six - Seven Nation tribes of north east USA had a system where the women chose their male chief, to be on the front lines of diplomatic negotiations, if not also war, if that is what it came to.

As long as the males physique-of-power, dominates over the female-nurturing-management of biologic/soul life, humanity will perish.

The male who uses mind over brawn, to aid the less dominant female is the only way I see out of this condition.

Standard of living with a smart ecological context, is the only and primary way forward for any size humanity on Earth.

These amateurs who keep exclaiming infinite this and infinite that, are living in fantasy land of delusion, that, misleads other into thinking anything is possible.  That is a bit like Kirk Douglas's movie "Sparticus", wherein he states, "you cant stop men, ---300o Spartans--- who want  to be free".

Sure hope and will to be free are great things, but mind over matter { brawn } is truely the movie all of humanity needs to see and experience as heroes.  Ex open source code is truly the closet thing to 'anything is possible' mindset.

"All for one and one for all".....author of the four musketeers....dare to be naive......

"design-science revolution"...Bucky Fuller...mind over matter......"Only Integrity Is Going To Count"....

economics is irrelevant to minimal effort of brawn and mind........Ebuc