This is why we need a living wage

[RKMBrown]

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.

Nonsense. One can have all the ability in the world but with no motivation, no character, that person can sit on his ability and not use it. That person can even spend most of his time subverting the company. Ability isn't worth a copper penny if it's not applied.

 

[Asclepias]

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.

Nonsense. One can have all the ability in the world but with no motivation, no character, that person can sit on his ability and not use it. That person can even spend most of his time subverting the company. Ability isn't worth a copper penny if it's not applied.

Reminds me of the quote "knowledge is power". No, applied knowledge is power.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with you that I would prefer that people aspire to better their lives. However, in the interest of fairness, our society must enable ladders of upward social mobility in order for people to have the opportunity to improve their fortunes.

I also think the optimal solution would be for employers to pay their employees more by way of the employer's own volition. There are several companies who pay far above the minimum wage of their own volition. Whole Foods, for example, though they do it to take advantage of that "hippie" vibe, let us not ignore the motivation.

Given that employers have, historically and presently, not been willing to pay their employees a wage consistent with even meager means, we have the minimum wage. The debate on the necessity of a minimum wage was settled in 1938 with the FLSA. The question is how high should it be? Obviously it should be enough such that a single fulltime employee can literally sustain themselves, and as expected the minimum wage actually is around 130% of poverty. Should it be higher to allow the minimum wage worker some disposable income to try to better themselves?

Just a thought on providing ladders of upward social mobility.

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again. I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices. That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X. Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant. We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods. From the CBO

On balance, according to CBO’s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount. Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase? We want Q to increase.

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

 

[RKMBrown]

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again. I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices. That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X. Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant. We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods. From the CBO

On balance, according to CBO&#8217;s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount. Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase? We want Q to increase.

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

So I'm eating a hamburger at my favorite local bbq joint (real event, this was yesterday). The burger meal costs ten bucks for me ten bucks for my wife, after taxes it comes to 23bucks. I happen to know that the waitress gets something like 2.50 an hour + tips and is going to texas a&m next year. I gave her a ten buck tip.

I would not have paid 15-20 bucks for a hamburger, onion rings & a drink, which would be the result of forcing the owner to pay everyone double pay.

I don't mind forking over a very good tip. But I do mind the attempt of the left to force me to pay the girl more than she's worth.

 

[Andylusion]

Salary should be relative to skill and ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are a lot more factors than just skill and ability.

For example, amount of effort applied for each work hour, number of hours, results, availability, like-ability with employees and customers, loyalty, retention issues, ....

For a lot of jobs what you get paid is also going to be based on your ability to negotiate with whomever is hiring you when you start, which goes to ability and like-ability but also negotiation experience which are not normally useful for every job, so is another skill set entirely.

No there's not. Everything you suggested applies to ability.

Oh crud. When you first posted that, I assumed you were joking, because normally you are very rational. This is the first post by you, that makes me think you are high on pot.

Come on dude.... You KNOW this isn't true.

If you need someone to seal your driveway, and you need someone else to replace the transmission in your car, who do you pay more money to?

The guy who fixes your car.

But what if the skill level and ability of the driveway sealer guy is exceptional, and the backyard mechanic is marginal (which is why he's not at a dealership)?

You are still going to pay vastly more to the guy fixing your car.

Why? Because the car is worth more to you fixed, than a few cracks in the driveway sealed.

Cracked driveway means 10 seconds of bumpy ride leaving and getting home. Broken car means not having a ride at all.

Skill and ability are only important insomuch as the value of the labor of what they are skilled and have ability in.

When I was younger, I was big time into video games (super nerd). I was so good at video games, that I got banned from dozens, on dozens of servers. They assumed I was cheating. It got to the point, that I spent more time trying to find a server I wasn't banned to play on, than actually playing. In fact (just being honest here), I was so good, and so often banned, that I finally started playing under the name "Tina", because all the nerdy boys online, wouldn't ban the gamer girl (and this was before VOIP, microphones and voice chat). I spent nearly 3 years playing as Tina, to avoid being banned from being so good.

I was very, very skilled at games, and had massive ability to play.

Now you tell me... who is paid more.... me the super nerd gamer guy, or the least talented, least skilled accountant?

Well of course the accountant. The value of the labor is what matters.

[ame=http://youtu.be/H7mzVTIYmXk]Lego NXT Xbox 360 Disc Changer "The Carousel" - YouTube[/ame]

See this guy? Talented guy. Amazing ability. Whose getting paid more? Him, or the least talented accounted? Again, the accountant. People are not going to pay him $50K for lego CD changers, no matter how much ability or skill he has. The labor (building lego CD changers), is not worth as much as even the least skilled accountant.

And here's the kicker.... YOU know this in your own life. You know that your claim that "Salary should be relative to skill and ability." doesn't apply when it's your own money.

If you go to two different stores, and one store has everything slightly cheaper, which store do you go to? They have the same milk, same eggs, same potatoes, each for $1 less.

You go to the cheaper store. Why? Are you suggesting they have less ability? Less skill at placing the eggs on the shelf? Are you saying that the cashier has less skilled at scanning, than the other?

Yet you are paying them less for the exact same product. Apparently skill and ability are not the only factor.... or you wouldn't go to the store charging you less.

Same if another guy shows up offering to seal your driveway, with the exact same sealant, only he's going to charge you $100 less than the other guy. Are you going to pay for the lower priced guy? Yes. But the skill and ability are the same.

The only difference between what you are willing to pay for someone's labor, and the employee at a company, is that there is this middle man between the customer and the employee, called the employer.

But it's exactly the same.

If you could arrange a system where you paid the cashier directly for services, you'd find the cheapest cashier you could find, no matter how "skilled at scanning" they are.

It's only because there's the employer between you and the employee, that you can say "Oh well they should pay only based on skill and ability!".... because you are not the one directly shelling out the cash. But you most certainly go to the cheaper store when you can.

 

[Andylusion]

I agree there should be ladders of upward social mobility. My point is that its better to go around or through obstacles in the mean time. Raising the wage on people that do not aspire to do better is not going to help them in the long run. They will quickly spend up that extra cash to meet their income level as 90% or more of people in the US do. A curious phenomenon of money is that the more there is in circulation (surplus) the higher the inflation rate goes. This will effectively put us all back in the same boat as your dollar will be able to buy less and less as time goes on. When people start educating themselves and striving forward without sitting around waiting for a government provided wage they tend to do better as human beings.

You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again. I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices. That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X. Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant. We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods. From the CBO

On balance, according to CBO’s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount. Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase? We want Q to increase.

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

Tell me that you are not suggesting that 'if only consumers would refuse a price' that this would fix anything?

In a free-market, the price will naturally gravitate to the market level just above the cost of production.

Minimum wage drives up the cost production. If the public refuses to pay the higher fee........ the result is they don't provide the service anymore, and all the employees are unemployed.

Price controls don't work for that exact reason. This is why they have shortages of *COFFEE* in Venezuela. You drive up the cost of labor, put price controls on product, and suddenly you have empty shelves....

The sign above the shelf is most fitting "Made in Socialism". Venezuela Socialism at work.

 

[Asclepias]

You made some excellent points.

Concerning the real wage of the minimum wage worker, let's start with an equation:
Z<X<Y
If we increase the money wage from some value X to some value Y (Y>X), eventually as prices increase we know that Y will buy the same amount of real goods that X could not so long in the past and we're back to the beginning again. I do agree with you.

However, by not increasing the minimum wage each minimum wage employee earns a lower real wage over time, every day.
Consider that if we abandoned this debate and left the minimum wage at X, but inflation continued, that minimum wage X would buy fewer and fewer goods as time goes on because of the inflation in prices. That minimum wage X would normalize with respect to inflation to a value Z lower than X. Ergo, freezing the minimum wage for years and not compensating for inflation does in fact lower the minimum real wage even the minimum money wage remains constant. We are making poor people poorer by doing nothing.



You're right, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for consumer goods. From the CBO

On balance, according to CBO&#8217;s analysis, raising the minimum wage would increase demand for goods and services because, taken together, the second, third, and fourth direct effects would shift income from business owners and consumers (as a whole) to low-wage workers. Low-wage workers generally spend a larger share of each dollar they receive than the average business owner or consumer does; thus, when a dollar from business owners or consumers is shifted to low-wage workers, overall spending increases.​

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf

So we see that the "velocity of money" will increase.
Let's use the equation of exchange, MV=PQ, and what we want to grow is Q.
Keeping M (Money Supply) constant, and noting that V will increase, the product PQ must also increase.
Minimum wage represents a price control, meaning that the government dictates that an hour of labor cannot be purchased for less than X amount. Raising X to Y will inflict an increase in P (price).
So we know V will increase and we know P will increase, but we do not know if the increase in V will exceed the increase in P.
The question is: will Q (real GDP) increase? We want Q to increase.

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

Tell me that you are not suggesting that 'if only consumers would refuse a price' that this would fix anything?

In a free-market, the price will naturally gravitate to the market level just above the cost of production.

Minimum wage drives up the cost production. If the public refuses to pay the higher fee........ the result is they don't provide the service anymore, and all the employees are unemployed.

Price controls don't work for that exact reason. This is why they have shortages of *COFFEE* in Venezuela. You drive up the cost of labor, put price controls on product, and suddenly you have empty shelves....

The sign above the shelf is most fitting "Made in Socialism". Venezuela Socialism at work.

I am suggesting exactly that. Its the law of supply and demand. You make a widget and price it at a certain point consumers will not pay then you are only hurting your bottom line. You now have a ton of widgets sitting there that you now have to sale to the .99 cent store to mitigate your loss. You may have to lay people off or go out of business but if you are smart you price your widget at what the consumer will pay for it. Thats why there is a whole industry dedicated to figuring out the price point for your widget and marketing it.

 

[Andylusion]

Here's what's going to happen. Let's pretend in magic world, that Obama passes a $15/hr minimum wage.

McDonald, which has billions of dollars, will replace their workers with robots. Thus, they can keep their prices low enough to stay in business.

That is a terrible leap in logic. This is not a situation where someone can "make it cheaper in China" because you are talking about cooked hamburgers served hot. There is no foreign competition. The cost increase would be inflicted upon every fast food restaurant in the United States. Given the fact that all competition McDonald's faces would suffer the same increase in cost, this is not a situation where McDonald's would need to keep prices low in response to competition. So, given that competition is not driving the price in the model you propose, a price increase is more realistic. That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales. It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!

Furthermore, if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce? It does not follow that anyone should fear a wage hike because MickeyDees might start investing in robots. If robots could be used (and actually are used in some small capacity to pour drinks in drive-thrus) McDonalds has an obligation to its stockholders reduce labor costs and implement the cheaper more efficient robot solution.

Look up the "Automated Beverage System". McDonalds is already investing in robots,

First, it doesn't matter if there is foriegn competition or not. People are not going to pay $20 for a fast food burger. A fast food burger is not worth $20. Thus they won't go. Thus the store closes.

So McDonald's is going to invest in automating with or without foreign competition.

"That price increase may yield to a lower volume of sales. It is the lower volume of sales that would reduce jobs!"

Dur... yeah. That was my whole point. You just made my entire point.

"if McDonalds had the option to replace their workforce with robots, why wouldn't they just replace the workforce?"

There are numerous reasons why McDonald's, and in fact all companies, prefer human workers over robots.

If you make a machine to flip burgers, and a machine to pour drinks, and the burger flipper machine breaks, can you just swap the drink machine to take over flipping burgers? Of course not.

If there is a system glitch, does a robot respond and adept to the problem? If someone pukes in the lobby, does a robot stop pouring drinks, and go clean up the mess?

And there is of course the simple fact that customer tend to prefer humans over robots. If for no other reason, than because they can yell when something goes wrong. Robot don't tend to care much about yelling customers.

McDonald's would much rather have people over robots. By far. But if customers are not willing to pay $20 for a burger, then robot it is. They'll go robots over bankruptcy any day. And by the way *YOU* would too.

My uncle is an engineer, and he built glassworks machines. His company sent him to China to try and sell their automated glassworks. The trip was a failure, because even though the machine would have saved the company money, it wasn't enough to justify replacing workers because wages are low. He did the math, they could have saved lots of money, but it simply wasn't enough to justify the machine.

If you want to start making a new product, you just tell your employees "New product today", and show them how to make it. Machines costs big time, to reconfigure for a new product. You can make a new product every day with people. A machine takes time.

Companies would always prefer people over machines. The *ONLY* reason they move to machines, is because it's either switch over, or close the company. The cost of labor is too high, verses what customers are willing to pay. That's why you automate.

That automation will happen as soon as the burger-flipper robot is invented. The day someone invents the burger-flipper robot this is going to happen. You do understand that MickeyDees has a responsibility to its shareholders, right? You can abolish the minimum wage all together and robots will still happen.

Too late.
McDonald's New High-Tech Burger Flipper | Techdirt
McDonald's had a completely automated store in California, back in 2003. The store was closed, but it was a proof of concept, and worked.

Robot Serves Up 360 Hamburgers Per Hour | Singularity Hub
"Alpha churns out a painless 340 hamburgers per hour."

McDonald's orders 7,000 touchscreen kiosks to replace cashiers - Neowin

McDonald's recently added 64,000 people to its payroll in the United States, but job prospects in Europe for those so inclined to work in the fast food industry are looking pretty grim right about now. That's because the fast food giant is poised to add touchscreen kiosks in more than 7,000 of its restaurants in Europe in effort to replace actual, human cashiers.

Why? Why did they hire more people in the US, and fewer people in France, that has to this day, a 10.5% unemployment rate?

Answer? Policies in France have driven up labor costs through Minimum wage and other regulations, so that they have to replace people with kiosks. Why are they hiring people instead of robots in the US? Because it's still profitable to hire people here.

You enact higher minimum wage, up to $15/hr? That will change very quickly, and McDonald's is testing out robot replacements as we speak, in case it becomes necessary.

Again, McDonald, can and has already made, a completely automated store. They could completely replace all workers at stores right now. They don't, because it's not yet worth while yet to do so. The moment you drive up wages with Federal Law, you'll see people being replaced by robots, real fast.

Okay, first, could you substantiate the claim "In the 1960s, there were dozens, nearly a hundred independent auto makers" ?

I am not aware of "nearly a hundred" or any number close to that. Please remember that to be on this list of independent automakers, the independent automakers must have actually made cars in the United States such that their manufacturing process was subject to regulation in the United States.
Second, you have completely overlooked the oil embargo. The oil embargo and price of gas was devastating to American inefficient cars. You have overlooked the growth foreign competition, and the fact that Germany and Japan had rejoined the world as nations with substantial industry after WWII. You have overlooked the great American Quality Crisis (Quality is Free by Phil Crosby).
You seem to be trying to blame everything on a book Ralph Nader wrote. Ralphie was never so powerful.

You caught my error. 1960s and before there were hundreds. But in 1960 there were still dozens of independent, and profitable car companies, even with foreign competition.

Packard. American Motors. Austin. Checker Motors. Jeep. Nash Metropolitan. Studebaker. Avanti. Griffith Automobile. International (used to make consumer vehicles). Excalibur. Stutz Motor Company. Bricklin. Clénet Coachworks. Shay Motors Corporation. Camelot Motors. Zimmer. Delorean.

And that's just what I can remember (and find links to). Nearly all of those, were either bought up by other companies, or closed down.

There was one, and I can't find the link to it, (either Stutz or Excalibur), where they were interviewing the owner, and asked why they didn't ramp up production, and the answer was that if they produced over a certain amount, they would be forced to follow all the Auto Regulation, and they couldn't afford it. In other words, they voluntarily choose to stay a niche company, because regulations cost too much.

Now these are only domestic makers, because you claimed that outside makers were not required to follow domestic regulations. I don't understand that claim. Or perhaps you didn't mean that? Because as far as I know, imported cars have to follow the same regulation that all domestically sold cars do. Thus they were equally effected.

And honestly, the same thing happened in numerous other countries, not just the US. Japan similarly had dozens of independent car makers. But as regulations were levied in Japan, they had the same result, of the big Japanese three buying out all the independent makers.

If McDonalds could get customers to pay $480 for a big mac, then the price of a big mac would be $480, that part is correct. Where you made a mistake is in assuming this translates into wages. If MickeyDees could charge $480 of a big mac, but only give $0.01 per hour to the burger-flipper... why wouldn't they? Why would they deprive their shareholders of the profit?
McDonalds is far more likely to pay just enough to keep the burger-flipper from leaving the job, maybe have some morale when he comes to work, and this will be a function of the supply of labor.

Nah. During the 1970s before deregulation of the airline industry, ticket prices were massively higher than what a free-market would pay for, because of government regulations.

During that time, companies paid their airline pilots, and all employees, a ton of money.

After deregulation, the ticket prices fell to market rates, and wages to employees, especially airline pilots fell too.

Did all the pilots quit? No, they are still working today, as they were during the 1990s.

So obviously, the companies could have paid them less during the 1970s. But.... they choose to pay them more. Why? Because they had more money to pay them with.

My company itself, is proof of this concept. During the late 90s, and 2000s, my company was drastically bigger than it is today. It was making tons of product. In the late 2000s, the company began getting smaller. All of their engineers, sales, and executives, had a 20% pay cut. All of them are still there, still working, still doing their jobs.

Obviously they could have cut their pay years ago, or never given them raises to begin with. Yet the company did.... why? Because they had the money to do so.

Companies that bring in more profits, tend to pay more wages. All of them do this.

In fact, the only places I know of that have not done this, have been the small mom&pop shops.

Hey now, that is not a fair comparison. How many MickeyDees burger-flippers "put on a show"? A high-end burger-flipper might make the same amount of money if he could figure out a routine and market that routine. That does distinguish the performer from the average burger-flipper.

I didn't compare bartenders with burger flippers. Read the post. I compared them with other bartenders, that also put on shows.

You are assuming fungibility in the service provided where none exists. The fact that the two services are different is why the consumer is willing to pay two different prices.

You made up a strawman, and attacked it. That shows you don't have an argument.

I assume you do not have a large yard. If you owned several acres, maybe this per-service price would seem more reasonable

I based it on how much my neighbor pays to have their lawn cut.

Thank you for making me aware of lawnbott.
LawnBott Robotic Mowers | LawnBott ? Electric Lawn Mower
If I am able to do so, I am going to terminate my landscaping services and start buying robots.
I do not care how much the landscaper will reduce his prices. I like robots a lot. I think robots are neat and the robot will never leave a cigarette butt in my yard.
I'm actually serious, if I could I'd buy a landscaping robot and the minimum wage has very little to do with my decision. See how that works?

Well that's you. The rest of us are not like that. If I can pay someone $25 to do my yard ($300 a year), I'm not going to buy a $1,200 robot, which could break, or get stolen.

If government regulations force me to pay $100 to do my yard ($1,200 a year), and I really don't want to do it myself, now that $1,200 price tag is more reasonable. The minimum wage (for the rest of us) has very much to do with our decision making. See how that works?

The price of the burger actually does not affect the wage of the worker. If there was a shortage of labor, the wage of the burger-flipper would sky rocket and this would be reflected in reduced profits.

No one is going to run a restaurant to earn $50,000 a year. If profits fall below a certain point, it's not worth it to run the operation. An owner would likely close the store, sell off everything they can, and put their money into something else with good profits.

Now you are correct that if the labor supply was lower, supply and demand would naturally move up labor prices.

Norway has no minimum wage, and pays $16 an hr (roughly). Their prices are up in the $16 for a burger. However, because prices are high, few people go to McDonalds in Norway. They have (last I checked) less than 1/4 the McDonald's that we have in the US (per population). And they are all located in expensive tourist areas.

Here's the difference. Labor prices going up because of a shortage of labor, is good. A shortage of labor, inherently means that few people are without jobs. So a decline in fast food joints because of higher prices, will not have a negative effect, because.... there is a shortage of labor.

In a country like ours, where we have tons of unskilled labor, the cost of labor goes down, thus increase the profitability and investment into low skilled labor jobs...... which is good because.... there is a ton of unskilled labor. We want more jobs for those that need those jobs.

The problem with the minimum wage is, it drives up labor costs, when there are tons of people who need employment. Thus jobs dry up, at the same time we have tons of people in need of jobs.

The FLSA and history thereof disagrees with you.

History doesn't disagree, and the FLSA is a government policy promoted by government which has invested interest is promoting themselves as being a benefit to society, to expand and grow themselves at the cost of tax payers. US Department of Labor, is wrong.

History does not disagree with me. You simply don't know history very well.

 

[beagle9]

And the only exception to that, is when people are replaced with machines.... which will cut down on inflation, but the people the minimum wage was meant to help, will end up unemployed.

So either way, it doesn't help. Either the minimum wage drives up inflation, or it causes people to lose their jobs.

Both result in people being just as bad, or worse off than before.

Nothing wrong with a minimum wage hike, but just as long as it is not used for a living wage instead of a minimal entrance pay hike when it is done. The living wage thing can be handled as a sperate issue in my honest opinion.

The minimum wage thing is just being used I think to satisfy the masses for political reasons, and to give corporations the excuse to pay equal pay across the board to labor. These issues are not being understood as they should be, and that is ashame really.

No, the primary driver of the minimum wage is Unions. It's not those 25 and younger, that work at Wendy's. Those people are not likely to vote anyway.

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

In each category, these are the lowest voter turn out rates, of any group.

Minimum wage laws, are most likely to effect, those that are least likely to vote.

The only reason the minimum wage is EVER made into a political issue, is because of Unions.

Unions hate cheaper labor undercutting their membership base. They hate the idea of companies providing cheaper goods to the public, with a lower cost labor. They hate that people without education, without training or skills, can make a living doing what Unions do, at a lower cost point.

In short, the Unions want to grow and become larger, and more political powerful, and lack of wage laws, prevent that.

So they vote democrap, donate to democraps, and organize media campaigns for democraps, anything to get these wage laws passed so they can screw unskilled workers, screw the consumer, and protect themselves.

Voter turn out, for those under the age of 24, is less than 48%.
Voter turn out, for those unmarried, is less than 53%.
Voter turn out, for those earning $20K or less, is less than 51%.

If this is true, then how did Obama get elected ? After the get out the vote campaign that was directed at the young folks of America, and then all the speeches at colleges and such, and then Obama being elected out of all of that? It just leads me to believe that your stats are skewed badly.

The Unions eh ? Seems that I remember not to long ago (some years back), where as they were on the fast track/bandwagon of having the same ideas of agreeing with the corporate and big companiy ideas and/or trends to replace their American laborers over time with Mexican labor, and this just as fast as they could get there the way it was all going down it seemed, but then all of a sudden the huge backlash started coming against the illegals, and against the over flowing of immigrants taking American manufacturing jobs in the nation, where as it all quickly grinded to a halt after that.

Then all of a sudden everyone had to start backtracking or rolling it all back quickly before they were caught in their schemes to crap on the American labor forces as found in all that was going on at the time. What was being found in these schemes or transitions or new waves of thinking, was just plain bad (IMHO), and worse it was all right beneath the Americans noses when it was happening too. I remember a news/entertainment style talk show segment (Bill Orielly maybe) where the union boss was asked about these concerns of the American laborers way back when, but I'm not sure what the outcome was of the interview now, because my memory isn't that good anymore on some stuff like that.

Do you all remember all of these things or issues not so long ago (maybe in the late 90's or early to mid 2000's ?

Cheap and low maintenance labor forces is exactly what companies wanted, and they had it growing like crazy at one point, and they also had the unions going along with it at some point. Suddenly it all came to a head, and the nation realized it had lost it's lower middle class American workforce in it all (the American workers in many labor fields), who needed always a job just like anybody else in this nation does, but the no vacancy sign was turned on him and her, while the Mexican labor forces began taking over the job labor markets by leaps and bounds.

The nations companies were looking for a cheap labor force in many things, and also a flat labor rate to pay them. The want is still there I think, and it's hard to break a dog from sucking eggs you see.

 

[HenryBHough]

Used to live in a dry climate. Spent a lot watering and feeding a lawn. Paid a neighbor's college kid to mow and trim. Then he was taught he needed a living wage. So I agreed. Paid him $10/hour (when minimum wage was around 5-buicks). Paid him to dig out the lawn. Haul it to the dump. Lay down plastic sheeting and weight it down with rocks. Then paid another guy with a truck time and material to haul in crushed serpentine rock.

Thereafter maintenance consisted of, by myself, spraying the whole lot with "Roundup" once a year. Kid somehow thought he had "won".

 

[beagle9]

Used to live in a dry climate. Spent a lot watering and feeding a lawn. Paid a neighbor's college kid to mow and trim. Then he was taught he needed a living wage. So I agreed. Paid him $10/hour (when minimum wage was around 5-buicks). Paid him to dig out the lawn. Haul it to the dump. Lay down plastic sheeting and weight it down with rocks. Then paid another guy with a truck time and material to haul in crushed serpentine rock.

Thereafter maintenance consisted of, by myself, spraying the whole lot with "Roundup" once a year. Kid somehow thought he had "won".

So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?

 

[HenryBHough]

So you moved him from 5 dollars minimum up to ten dollars max in an instant ? Why didn't you move him up gradually, and get far more time out of him in that way, instead of the way that you have described ? Round up ain't cheap, so are you sure you came out in the spite work of the situation in which you have described ?

Moved him up instantly to give him a sense of victory and ensure that he stuck around to do the grunt work to kill off his own job.

At the time a gallon of Roundup Concentrate was about $75 and I already had a pump sprayer. Once the grass was gone and the rock was in it took about 1/2 gallon of concentrate to do the whole job so the annual cost was $75 plus about one hour of my labor. Also eliminated were the costs for fertilizer, weed control, lime and the huge portion of the city water/sewer bill that was occasioned by the irrigation usage. I was ahead in the first year alone.

 

[blackhawk]

How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?

 

[sameech]

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

One of the questions I ponder is that if as a whole, poor people spend all their money consuming goods because they are poor and have to meet their basic needs, or if they have trouble meeting their basic needs because they make bad financial decisions. Obviously there are a lot in either category, but I am not sure which side tips the scales.

It is hard to wrap my brain around based on my own experiences. There was a point when I was in college that I was making maybe 2/3rds the income of a full-time minimum wage worker on an annual basis, yet I paid all my living expense bills, had food to eat, had gas money, book money, etc. I didn't have much else and there were times when I was paying my credit card and then taking that available credit back in charging food until I could get to a break in which I could work some, but it was doable as a lifestyle without welfare.

Edit, BTW I loved when they declared Bush's stimulus a failure because people saved the money or used it to pay bills. It gave me so much hope for sanity. Unfortunately it was probably just a foreshadow of the crash that was coming

 

[Asclepias]

How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?

Most people live outside of their means. Thats why consumer debt is at a all time high. Hell some people think buying a house means they have an asset even when they are paying on it. I agree there should be some min wage but I dont think that should necessarily be living wage designed to support a family. That kill initiative.

 

[Asclepias]

You make a very valid point I have never really considered in regard to this issue. Wages stay the same and the cost of living still does go up. The only way to stop it is for consumers to consciously set a limit on the price they will pay for goods. Since the average american is hopelessly brainwashed to be a consumer I dont see that happening. This makes the minimum wage increase more palatable to me but there still remains the issue of motivation. If you are making minimum wage you should be asking yourself 3 questions?

Is min wage acceptable for me and my family?

Am I going to sit around and wait for a wage increase?

Will I go out and make myself more valuable?

One of the questions I ponder is that if as a whole, poor people spend all their money consuming goods because they are poor and have to meet their basic needs, or if they have trouble meeting their basic needs because they make bad financial decisions. Obviously there are a lot in either category, but I am not sure which side tips the scales.

It is hard to wrap my brain around based on my own experiences. There was a point when I was in college that I was making maybe 2/3rds the income of a full-time minimum wage worker on an annual basis, yet I paid all my living expense bills, had food to eat, had gas money, book money, etc. I didn't have much else and there were times when I was paying my credit card and then taking that available credit back in charging food until I could get to a break in which I could work some, but it was doable as a lifestyle without welfare.

Edit, BTW I loved when they declared Bush's stimulus a failure because people saved the money or used it to pay bills. It gave me so much hope for sanity. Unfortunately it was probably just a foreshadow of the crash that was coming

Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions. What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses. The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are. Thats really just human nature.

 

[blackhawk]

How do you determine what is a living wage for someone? How do you determine a living wage for people and we do have these who buy a house more expensive than they can afford then fill it with all new furniture and appliances cable hi def big screen tv throw a new car in there max out the credit cards and simply refuse to live within their means?

Most people live outside of their means. Thats why consumer debt is at a all time high. Hell some people think buying a house means they have an asset even when they are paying on it. I agree there should be some min wage but I dont think that should necessarily be living wage designed to support a family. That kill initiative.

I'm all for giving the minimum wage a bump but I'm talking about 50 or maybe 75 cents not doubling it to 15.00 dollars a hour I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.

 

[HenryBHough]

...........I find this living wage talk a bit silly given that it would vary depending on how responsible one is with their finances.

What a quaint, old-fashioned concept, "responsibility".

You funny!!!

 

[sameech]

Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions. What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses. The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are. Thats really just human nature.

My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem. While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc. I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long. These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them

 

[Asclepias]

Somewhere along the line you learned to make the correct decisions. What I saw growing up in the ghetto was people lived check to check and were persuaded to keep up with the Joneses. The less money people have the more they use it on things in order to look more financially successful than they are. Thats really just human nature.

My mom could get 11 cents out of a dime so that is probably where I picked up the habit

For whatever it may be worth to you, it isn't just a ghetto problem. While I see people trying to blame the 2008 meltdown on government programs to help minorities and the poor, it was mostly because of people making $35K-$70K a year trying to buy the same cars their bosses had, and living in the same neighborhoods their bosses lived in, etc. I don't personally know of any blue collar or less types that lost their homes, but I know more people than I could bother to count who lost everything driving nicer cars and living in bigger houses than their middle class incomes could ever have sustained for long. These were the same people doing cash out refinancing every year or two to pay their credit cards they were living on to keep from defaulting on them

Yes I know its not just a ghetto problem however there it is magnified. As an adult I watched supposedly successful white people losing their homes all over my neighborhood at one point.