Analyzing A Practical Minimum Wage

[Jackinthebox]

Silliness. The only peeps earning bottom dollar are those whose education, knowledge, experience and productivity warrant it. We aren't paid "an actual living wage" in America but rather what the market will bear. There will always be some at the bottom and they are there for obvious reasons. The push to drastically increase their wage is a socialist/unionist thing:

"The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage. . . . The two most popular formulas were setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage or mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454

Making taxpayer pay the labor costs for private industry, THAT is socialism my friend. Either YOU can pay to feed and shelter my workers, or you can demand that I pay my workers enough to afford those basics.

The market will "bear" a living wage, jsut as it did in the past, when our economy was actually in good shape. Our economy is in the crapper today because no one has any money to spend. No one has any money to spend because wages have been artificially depressed instead of keeping pace with things like productivity. The average American worker is 400% more productive than in 1950, but is not getting anywhere near that much of the pie.

Your opinion of low wage workers is rather ignorant I might add. Plenty of educated people working low wage jobs. Those workers also tend to be the most productive, not the least. Experience makes little difference in today's job marketplace and can even be seen as a liability. Knowledge? You might be surprised how much specialized job knowledge goes into a "simple" job like fast food. Everything from customer service kills, to precise time management, to how to break down a shake machine, to public health codes.

 

[SAYIT]

Silliness. The only peeps earning bottom dollar are those whose education, knowledge, experience and productivity warrant it. We aren't paid "an actual living wage" in America but rather what the market will bear. There will always be some at the bottom and they are there for obvious reasons. The push to drastically increase their wage is a socialist/unionist thing:

"The Center for Union Facts analyzed collective-bargaining agreements obtained from the Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards. The data indicate that a number of unions in the service, retail and hospitality industries peg their base-line wages to the minimum wage. . . . The two most popular formulas were setting baseline union wages as a percentage above the state or federal minimum wage or mandating a flat wage premium above the minimum wage."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324048904578318541000422454

Making taxpayer pay the labor costs for private industry, THAT is socialism my friend. Either YOU can pay to feed and shelter my workers, or you can demand that I pay my workers enough to afford those basics.

Or industry can simply eliminate those jobs leaving those at the bottom totally out in the cold. Making $7.25/hr won't yield the good life but the experience may lead to it and believe it or not some at the bottom manage to get by without gov't aid. You are promoting the "nanny state" and that is socialism.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Or industry can simply eliminate those jobs leaving those at the bottom totally out in the cold. Making $7.25/hr won't yield the good life but the experience may lead to it and believe it or not some at the bottom manage to get by without gov't aid. You are promoting the "nanny state" and that is socialism.

Regulation is not socialism. Socialism is using public funds for industry. Now that would be bad enough, but how it is America now, it isn't just being used for industry, but PRIVATE industry for which mandated investors are paid no ROI.

If those jobs could be eliminated, they WOULD be eliminated. I have never hired a worker that was not necessary to the operation of my business. Besides, if your business model can't be successful without socialized labor, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

 

[SAYIT]

Or industry can simply eliminate those jobs leaving those at the bottom totally out in the cold. Making $7.25/hr won't yield the good life but the experience may lead to it and believe it or not some at the bottom manage to get by without gov't aid. You are promoting the "nanny state" and that is socialism.

Regulation is not socialism. Socialism is using public funds for industry. Now that would be bad enough, but how it is America now, it isn't just being used for industry, but PRIVATE industry for which mandated investors are paid no ROI.

If those jobs could be eliminated, they WOULD be eliminated. I have never hired a worker that was not necessary to the operation of my business. Besides, if your business model can't be successful without socialized labor, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

Socialism is the use of gov't power to confiscate the wealth of some to benefit others and it has proven to be a monumental failure. We don't use that failed system here but I suggest you hold your breath until we do.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Or industry can simply eliminate those jobs leaving those at the bottom totally out in the cold. Making $7.25/hr won't yield the good life but the experience may lead to it and believe it or not some at the bottom manage to get by without gov't aid. You are promoting the "nanny state" and that is socialism.

Regulation is not socialism. Socialism is using public funds for industry. Now that would be bad enough, but how it is America now, it isn't just being used for industry, but PRIVATE industry for which mandated investors are paid no ROI.

If those jobs could be eliminated, they WOULD be eliminated. I have never hired a worker that was not necessary to the operation of my business. Besides, if your business model can't be successful without socialized labor, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

Socialism is the use of gov't power to confiscate the wealth of some to benefit others and it has proven to be a monumental failure. We don't use that failed system here but I suggest you hold your breath until we do.

No one is talking about confiscating anything. Just the opposite. What we are talking about is preventing private industry from usurping public dollars in order to maximize their personal profits. Business owners should be paying their own labor expenses, not the taxpayers.


so·cial·ism
noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies


Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[SAYIT]

Or industry can simply eliminate those jobs leaving those at the bottom totally out in the cold. Making $7.25/hr won't yield the good life but the experience may lead to it and believe it or not some at the bottom manage to get by without gov't aid. You are promoting the "nanny state" and that is socialism.

Regulation is not socialism. Socialism is using public funds for industry. Now that would be bad enough, but how it is America now, it isn't just being used for industry, but PRIVATE industry for which mandated investors are paid no ROI.

If those jobs could be eliminated, they WOULD be eliminated. I have never hired a worker that was not necessary to the operation of my business. Besides, if your business model can't be successful without socialized labor, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to China.

Socialism is the use of gov't power to confiscate the wealth of some to benefit others and it has proven to be a monumental failure. We don't use that failed system here but I suggest you hold your breath until we do.

No one is talking about confiscating anything. Just the opposite. What we are talking about is preventing private industry from usurping public dollars in order to maximize their personal profits...

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

 

[Jackinthebox]

 

[Stephanie]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

You're a union and government tool. that's all
how many businesses do you have and how many people do you have working for you?

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

You're a union and government tool. that's all
how many businesses do you have and how many people do you have working for you?

Im retired for the most part. But I never had any union workers working for me. I operated small businesses. Gas stations, movie theaters, restaurants. Less than a thousand workers overall.

But I am not a government tool. I am trying to take government OUT of private industry. I would much rather see the simple min wage law applied effectively, rather than letting private industry exploit a socialized labor pool.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Labor is a resource just like any other business expense. Let's pretend for a moment that labor is actually gasoline, and that I operate a trucking company. Who should pay my fuel costs to run my fleet? Should I pay the price at the pump? A price which is pretty much a government regulated standard. Or should I be able to tank up my fleet at the highway department pump, and skip paying?

 

[dblack]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

This is a ridiculously thin, and deceitful, excuse for imposing government wage controls. If what you're after is ending the corporate welfare, do it directly. Make the companies with employees on welfare reimburse the state for their benefits. This addresses the bad actors without indulging socialist wet dreams.

 

[Jackinthebox]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

This is a ridiculously thin, and deceitful, excuse for imposing government wage controls. If what you're after is ending the corporate welfare, do it directly. Make the companies with employees on welfare reimburse the state for their benefits. This addresses the bad actors without indulging socialist wet dreams.

But it also does nothing for economic recovery, or for the benefit of small business.

More money in the pockets of workers means more customers, more spending, better economic liquidity, and more competition. That last part is the real threat to the big corporations. Competition from small business. For them it is not so much about bringing in more dollars anymore, it's about dominating market share. You start getting into that territory, and dollar figures matter a lot less. They are less concerned with making more dollars in a day than they are about keeping the market cornered. Less consumer spending leaves companies like WalMart and McD's in a dominant position precisely because there is less spending.

 

[Jackinthebox]

Also, there is nothing socialist about paying your own bills and paying your own way. Government regulation is not synonymous with socialism. I am not a big fan of big government, but I am no anarchist either and believe that some regulations are indeed necessary.

 

[dblack]

Also, there is nothing socialist about paying your own bills and paying your own way.

You're right, there's not. But there is something quite socialist about government dictating wages. And it's totally unnecessary to address the problem.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jackinthebox]

You're right, there's not. But there is something quite socialist about government dictating wages. And it's totally unnecessary to address the problem.

The government has not only a right but a duty to manage the economic vitality of the nation. Interstate trade regulation is written right into the Constitution.

 

[SAYIT]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

And yes, min wage certainly is supposed to be a living wage. The notion of "entry-level" is what is false here. I don't care what you do for a living, if it is your first day or last day on the job. You should be paid enough to buy your own groceries without taxpayer assistance.

"The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees." -Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute

Groceries can be bought without taxpayer assistance by min wage earners and given the wide swings in the cost of living by state, the federal gov't has no biz setting a national standard. This battle is all about throwing the unions a bone. The groceries argument is strictly a smokescreen.

 

[SAYIT]

Labor is a resource just like any other business expense. Let's pretend for a moment that labor is actually gasoline, and that I operate a trucking company. Who should pay my fuel costs to run my fleet? Should I pay the price at the pump? A price which is pretty much a government regulated standard. Or should I be able to tank up my fleet at the highway department pump, and skip paying?

The price at the pump is NOT "a gov't regulated standard." The only gov't impact on the price of gas is the taxes they add on. The price of gas itself is a function of supply and demand and if you've purchased any lately you'd know that.
Labor is indeed a commodity and it's value is set by the same market forces ... supply and demand.

 

[SAYIT]

No, you're not. No matter how you try to spin this you are promoting the use of gov't power to take from some (biz) and give to others and you don't seem to care how many jobs are lost by your actions. Min wage isn't supposed to be a living wage but rather an entry level wage and the federal gov't has no biz defining it.

Using government power to tell private business to pay their own bills is hardly the thievery you are trying to portray. Yes, money SHOULD be taken from private business and given to others, their workers. So that we don't have to buy their groceries.

This is a ridiculously thin, and deceitful, excuse for imposing government wage controls. If what you're after is ending the corporate welfare, do it directly. Make the companies with employees on welfare reimburse the state for their benefits. This addresses the bad actors without indulging socialist wet dreams.

But it also does nothing for economic recovery, or for the benefit of small business.

More money in the pockets of workers means more customers, more spending, better economic liquidity, and more competition...

BS.
Gov't dictated higher wages at the bottom of the scale means higher wages - and higher prices - for everyone, leaving those at the bottom with the same dilemma they now have (but they'll need a wheelbarrow to carry around the almost worthless cash) ... poverty. The only way out of that dilemma is for the worker to become more valuable to potential employers.

 

[SAYIT]

Also, there is nothing socialist about paying your own bills and paying your own way. Government regulation is not synonymous with socialism. I am not a big fan of big government, but I am no anarchist either and believe that some regulations are indeed necessary.

Judging by your comments on this thread, you are for unnecessary and unproductive gov't intervention in our lives.