The Minimum Wage: What's the Big Deal?

#301
#301
Carl Pickens said:
Did you read my post? I said I get your point with the outrageous CEO salaries..... I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
Click to expand...

I read your post. I was responding to your question about working around highly intelligent individuals. The Jamie Dimons and Blankfeins of the world are just examples of some people that don't produce anything, yet it is not just limited to banking.

I can respect he talent of true genius and have no problem with people that actually produce a product or provide a service getting paid. But I have no respect for those that are a drag on the economy and humanity.
 
#302
#302
Awesome

UC Berkeley Touts $15 Wage Law, Then Fires Hundreds After It Passe | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

A week after California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the state’s $15 minimum wage boost into law, UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent a memo to employees announcing that 500 jobs were getting cut.

Coincidence? Not really.

Last year, University of California President Janet Napolitano announced plans to boost its minimum wage to $15 at the start of next school year, independent of the state law. Since UC Berkeley was already in financial trouble — it ran a $109 million deficit last year and is projecting a deficit of $150 million this year — number crunchers there had to have factored in the higher mandated wage when making their layoff decisions.

Those workers might want to have a chat with the folks at UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research, who just days before Brown signed the wage-hike bill released a study touting the minimum wage as a boon to low-income household breadwinners.

After that report came out, Ken Jacobs, chairman of the UC Berkeley center, told the Los Angeles Times, “This is a very big deal for low-wage workers in California, for their families and for their children.”

It is a big deal, as well, to those soon to be out of work UC Berkeley workers.

But why is anyone surprised about jobs cuts following a wage hike? It’s one of the most basic laws of economics. Any high school kid taking Econ 101 can explain it: If you raise the price of something, demand goes down.

Keep in mind, too, that a $15 minimum wage is more than twice the federal minimum wage today. And it would set the wage floor higher than it’s ever been. On an inflation-adjusted basis, the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at just over $10 an hour.

Even the liberal Mother Jones admits that a $15 minimum is “terra incognita” and “might not be entirely benign.”

What’s surprising, then, is that unions, liberals and others pushing the minimum wage hike have managed to convince the public that this law somehow doesn’t apply to the labor market, and so succeeded in getting $15 laws in California, New York and Seattle. You can bet that either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton will push $15 at the national level if either is elected.

Berkeley employees whose jobs are on the chopping block might want to educate these leaders about the perils of this idea.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#305
#305
If you choose minimum wage jobs as a career path.. It means you have zero marketable skills. That is more of a you problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#306
#306
Biopsyman said:
If you choose minimum wage jobs as a career path.. It means you have zero marketable skills. That is more of a you problem
Click to expand...

Somebody's gotta do it. Can't have only teenagers serving our smug faces our lattes, Whoppers, and merchandise. Wouldn't be enough laborers to meet our demands.

I'm not necessarily a $15 minimum wage guy, and I think regional costs differences should also play a part in this debate (rather than assuming it should be universal), but I don't understand how this is something that Europe does with relative success yet we somehow can't do it because we'll have to pay too much for services/goods and/or lose our jobs. Something just doesn't add up to me.
 
#307
#307
volprof said:
Somebody's gotta do it. Can't have only teenagers serving our smug faces our lattes, Whoppers, and merchandise. Wouldn't be enough laborers to meet our demands.

I'm not necessarily a $15 minimum wage guy, and I think regional costs differences should also play a part in this debate (rather than assuming it should be universal), but I don't understand how this is something that Europe does with relative success yet we somehow can't do it because we'll have to pay too much for services/goods and/or lose our jobs. Something just doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

We can't spend as much as Europe because we're basically working pro bono for Chinese shipping companies as naval security, and other such things
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#308
#308
volprof said:
Somebody's gotta do it. Can't have only teenagers serving our smug faces our lattes, Whoppers, and merchandise. Wouldn't be enough laborers to meet our demands.

I'm not necessarily a $15 minimum wage guy, and I think regional costs differences should also play a part in this debate (rather than assuming it should be universal), but I don't understand how this is something that Europe does with relative success yet we somehow can't do it because we'll have to pay too much for services/goods and/or lose our jobs. Something just doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

Europe isn't all roses as some will try and have you believe. If a company wants to do it then good for them. But no business should be forced to pay their employees $15/hr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#309
#309
apevol said:
We can't spend as much as Europe because we're basically working pro bono for Chinese shipping companies as naval security, and other such things
Click to expand...

tumscalcium said:
Europe isn't all roses as some will try and have you believe. If a company wants to do it then good for them. But no business should be forced to pay their employees $15/hr.
Click to expand...

No, Europe is not a utopia, and, as it ages, its happy days will be rapidly coming to an end. I am glad that is a fate we will not be facing for the foreseeable future and most likely not even into the next century (if demographic forecasts are indeed accurate). As you say, ape, we also largely subsidize many of their social programs and costs through our defense spending, making a 15 percent unemployment in, say, Spain, perhaps less of an issue than it would be here.

Even so, something tells me - call it my gut - that Europe may actually protect its workers (same reason why they work less, get more paid time off, have healthcare, family leave, etc.) instead of leaving them to the "morality" of the free market.

I believe two things, and very strongly: government cannot solve everything and should seek to stay out of matters as much as possible, and free markets are not always right and moral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#310
#310
volprof said:
No, Europe is not a utopia, and, as it ages, its happy days will be rapidly coming to an end. I am glad that is a fate we will not be facing for the foreseeable future and most likely not even into the next century (if demographic forecasts are indeed accurate). As you say, ape, we also largely subsidize many of their social programs and costs through our defense spending, making a 15 percent unemployment in, say, Spain, perhaps less of an issue than it would be here.

Even so, something tells me - call it my gut - that Europe may actually protect its workers (same reason why they work less, get more paid time off, have healthcare, family leave, etc.) instead of leaving them to the "morality" of the free market.

I believe two things, and very strongly: government cannot solve everything and should seek to stay out of matters as much as possible, and free markets are not always right and moral.
Click to expand...

Forcing companies to pay family leave is moral?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#312
#312
tumscalcium said:
Forcing companies to pay family leave is moral?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with rewarding employees for their work and for replenishing our labor force? And possibly combating future social delinquency in the process?

If I wanted to live in complete freedom, I'd move out to the woods somewhere in central Alaska.
 
#315
#315
volprof said:
What's wrong with rewarding employees for their work and for replenishing our labor force? And possibly combating future social delinquency in the process?

If I wanted to live in complete freedom, I'd move out to the woods somewhere in central Alaska.
Click to expand...

If companies offer it then great. Why the f should Joe from Joe's plumbing down the street be forced to pay maternity leave for Sally the receptionist whenever the hell she gets prego? What does he do about the receptionist position now? Pay two people to do one position? Go without one? Are you the type that thinks of you own a business you're ridiculously wealthy with an endless cash flow? There are a lot of people that believe just that.

Social delinquency is caused by lack of paid maternity leave? Please pull your head out, you're better than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#316
#316
volprof said:
Somebody's gotta do it. Can't have only teenagers serving our smug faces our lattes, Whoppers, and merchandise. Wouldn't be enough laborers to meet our demands.

I'm not necessarily a $15 minimum wage guy, and I think regional costs differences should also play a part in this debate (rather than assuming it should be universal), but I don't understand how this is something that Europe does with relative success yet we somehow can't do it because we'll have to pay too much for services/goods and/or lose our jobs. Something just doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

Somehow chick fil a manages to do it with a store full of kids. Maybe there's someone over 21 in the back, you rarely see them. Go into a MCD or BK and it's clear there's a lot of "lifers" in there. Way too old to be doing that job. What is crazy is that skilled labor is in such demand right now. Trade jobs, truckers, framers, nurses, etc. have hundreds of thousands of positions and the pay is high. Pulte Homes came up 500 units short this quarter because they can't find enough crews to finish houses. Instead these people want to keep doing a low skill job but get paid like someone with skills. Interesting to me that Bernie keeps pushing college for all in the face of a huge skilled labor gap. Trades are generally where the democrats find voters, yet instead of pushing vocational or remedial skill training they think everyone should get a four year degree. Not everyone needs to go to college. And there are skilled jobs that pay stupid money compared to what you'll make with a bachelors in most fields.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#317
#317
volprof said:
Somebody's gotta do it. Can't have only teenagers serving our smug faces our lattes, Whoppers, and merchandise. Wouldn't be enough laborers to meet our demands.

I'm not necessarily a $15 minimum wage guy, and I think regional costs differences should also play a part in this debate than assuming it should be universal), but I don't understand how this is something that Europe does with relative success yet we somehow can't do it because we'll have to pay too much for services/goods and/or lose our jobs. Something just doesn't add up to me.
Click to expand...

Markets determine wages which impact the end user of customers
 
#318
#318
tumscalcium said:
If companies offer it then great. Why the f should Joe from Joe's plumbing down the street be forced to pay maternity leave for Sally the receptionist whenever the hell she gets prego? What does he do about the receptionist position now? Pay two people to do one position? Go without one? Are you the type that thinks of you own a business you're ridiculously wealthy with an endless cash flow? There are a lot of people that believe just that.

Social delinquency is caused by lack of paid maternity leave? Please pull your head out, you're better than this.
Click to expand...

How come in societies in the past you could work your 20 hours a week of hunting or gathering, a woman could have a child, and everyone could be provided for, and no one today considers them all lazy, reprobate, or overly demanding? And yet, today, we have people who could work 80 hours a week and still barely get by and women who want to be a part of the labor force but also want to still provide us with our future generations, and half of us complain about what a bunch of lazy, stupid, and demanding people they are.

I don't want to go back to the past, but if you don't think this gap between the two in terms of perspective sucks, then, man, that sucks. In some ways, while we've largely improved our quality of life, we've just made things more difficult on ourselves and have isolated ourselves from a sense of what is required of us to function appropriately as a well-adjusted society.

We can't have our cake and eat it at the same time. We're going to have to decide what is more important to us: providing women with a means to work, have children, and still contribute another income to a family that now requires at least two incomes, or returning to gendered economic models before post-Industrial society. Our problem at the moment is that we're attempting to do both at the same time. This won't work forever.
 
#319
#319
DancingOutlaw said:
Somehow chick fil a manages to do it with a store full of kids. Maybe there's someone over 21 in the back, you rarely see them. Go into a MCD or BK and it's clear there's a lot of "lifers" in there. Way too old to be doing that job. What is crazy is that skilled labor is in such demand right now. Trade jobs, truckers, framers, nurses, etc. have hundreds of thousands of positions and the pay is high. Pulte Homes came up 500 units short this quarter because they can't find enough crews to finish houses. Instead these people want to keep doing a low skill job but get paid like someone with skills. Interesting to me that Bernie keeps pushing college for all in the face of a huge skilled labor gap. Trades are generally where the democrats find voters, yet instead of pushing vocational or remedial skill training they think everyone should get a four year degree. Not everyone needs to go to college. And there are skilled jobs that pay stupid money compared to what you'll make with a bachelors in most fields.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily dispute your other claims, but I find it unlikely that the Chick-fil-a model could work across the board. It's just one anecdotal example. The one place that really attracts teens, along with Starbucks, largely because I assume both do a lot to help out with college plans. I doubt, however, that there are enough teens either able or willing to work such jobs to fill them all. It's not just the fast food industry we're talking about. We're also talking about grocery stores, retail, warehousing, and other low-paid, low-skilled industries. That's a lot of teens.

To produce that amount of teens, we're probably going to have to put my paid maternity leave plan into action very soon. Paid family leave is optional, but all the better for those employers who so choose.
 
#320
#320
volprof said:
Anyhow, that bit of free market utopian nonsense (the equivalent of Karl Marx, just on the opposite side of the economic spectrum) being out of the way, why do you still despise the minimum wage? Conversely, why do you support the minimum wage?
Click to expand...

Your use of "despise" the minimum wage is not in any way the correct choice of word.

The economic philospher's Achilles heel may well be they ascribe ill will, self motivation and malfeasance to all systems other than the one they espouse. Adams' free market does not account for predatory capitalism, nor does Marx's 'social contract' allow for contract managers whose only goals become self enrichment and political aggrandizement. And the accumulation of functional sociopaths; those predatory sharks, without a conscience and who's goals only benefit themselves, are proven to accumulate in business and politics, with their numbers increasing the higher up the food chain we go.

The institution of minimum wage is intended to protect those who can not protect themselves from being swallowed by the sharks and inflation. But what industries should we place under minimum wage? Should "minimum wage" be considered a supplemental wage ... where one's primary living costs are covered by another source? Or, should it be a "minimum cost of living wage" where an individual could support a small family by turning burgers?

I think we need to split the concept. A manual laborer working for a sewer construction company down in a deep ditch shoveling mud has a different value than the burger turner who is different than the neighbor's high school kid who don't even mow his own lawn that now wants $30 for a little less the 1.33 hrs it takes to mow my lawn using my self propelled mower & string weeder. About $22.50 an hour. If the mower stalls, he has no mechanical apptitude. He wouldn't think, or know how to check the oil, or that a mower blade needs sharpening every so often. Compare his demand to Knoxville's starting wages for a 4yr BSRN (Bachelor of Science Registered Nurse). He's not mowing for me.

Cost of living minimum could even result in more folk out of work. Many businesses could never sell their product at a price to cover the wage demand. Much like most manufacturing jobs are outside US borders because the unions priced themselves out of the market.

I don't have an answer.
It's a complicated algorithm I'm not qualified to assess. But I do know, those who's job it is to dig through the issues and develop a workable solution really need to be very sure more folk aren't hurt than helped because they run with a popular rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#321
#321
volprof said:
How come in societies in the past you could work your 20 hours a week of hunting or gathering, a woman could have a child, and everyone could be provided for, and no one today considers them all lazy, reprobate, or overly demanding? And yet, today, we have people who could work 80 hours a week and still barely get by and women who want to be a part of the labor force but also want to still provide us with our future generations, and half of us complain about what a bunch of lazy, stupid, and demanding people they are.

I don't want to go back to the past, but if you don't think this gap between the two in terms of perspective sucks, then, man, that sucks. In some ways, while we've largely improved our quality of life, we've just made things more difficult on ourselves and have isolated ourselves from a sense of what is required of us to function appropriately as a well-adjusted society.

We can't have our cake and eat it at the same time. We're going to have to decide what is more important to us: providing women with a means to work, have children, and still contribute another income to a family that now requires at least two incomes, or returning to gendered economic models before post-Industrial society. Our problem at the moment is that we're attempting to do both at the same time. This won't work forever.
Click to expand...

Having a child is a personal choice. Under no circumstances should I be forced to pay for other people to take time off work to have their kid they obviously won't be able to support. Now I'll be feeding, housing, clothing their kid along with them.

If you can't afford kids, let alone yourself, don't have them.

Lack of personal responsibility is the biggest issue right now. People need to stop being afraid of hearing the truth about worthless people. And people need to stop enabling worthlessness.

Again, if companies want to pay their employees to have kids then good for them. Under no circumstance should that be mandated by law or subsidized by net taxpayers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#322
#322
tumscalcium said:
Having a child is a personal choice. Under no circumstances should I be forced to pay for other people to take time off work to have their kid they obviously won't be able to support. Now I'll be feeding, housing, clothing their kid along with them.

If you can't afford kids, let alone yourself, don't have them.

Lack of personal responsibility is the biggest issue right now. People need to stop being afraid of hearing the truth about worthless people. And people need to stop enabling worthlessness.

Again, if companies want to pay their employees to have kids then good for them. Under no circumstance should that be mandated by law or subsidized by net taxpayers.
Click to expand...

How does that square with GOP stance on abortion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#324
#324
tumscalcium said:
Having a child is a personal choice. Under no circumstances should I be forced to pay for other people to take time off work to have their kid they obviously won't be able to support. Now I'll be feeding, housing, clothing their kid along with them.

If you can't afford kids, let alone yourself, don't have them.

Lack of personal responsibility is the biggest issue right now. People need to stop being afraid of hearing the truth about worthless people. And people need to stop enabling worthlessness.

Again, if companies want to pay their employees to have kids then good for them. Under no circumstance should that be mandated by law or subsidized by net taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Your solution may be a good policy for you, but it is hardly a solution for a modern society to survive in perpetuity, especially since the wealthy don't reproduce and are too few in numbers even if they did. Even the middle-class, which can afford children for the most part, is too small to replenish our labor force, even assuming the entire middle-class of reproductive years went and got freaky and started spitting out young'uns. This, even if they wanted to do so, which most statistics show they currently do not - at least not the white middle-class.

As I told you the other day concerning Bismarck, Prussia, and universal healthcare, this is not a conservative v. liberal thing. That's a false dichotomy created in our American context to serve certain political ends, namely elections. This is a pragmatic thing. Of course we don't want people leaching, but there's also no reason why anyone willing to work - as many are - should struggle for basic necessities. They don't have to be rich, or even middle-class, but there's no reason why they should go deep into debt for having a child or for getting sick.

In a modern world, where we want large economies, women must also work. So how are you going to address the matter of balancing living costs with reproduction necessities?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top