Minimum wage should be $22.62 an hour

Our actual compensation is $25/hr and since our enterprises depends upon the United States Postal Service (for product delivery) it would be accurate to say we didn't "build" it all. We're highly dependent upon government because private shipping is cost prohibitive in many cases. For example to send a $30 part to India and Australia where we have customers it would cost about $85 by FedEx or UPS while the postal service can deliver it for $15. If we had to charge $85 to ship a $30 part we'd have very few international customers.

 

Why is it that some argue the employer has a right to pay $10/hr but an employee doesn't have a right to be able to live off of the wages they're being paid for working?

I would argue there are equal rights for both the employer and the employee.

The employer has a right to earn a profit from the labor of the employee.

The employee has a right to be able to live off the compensation for their labor.

 

Let's talk about "Rights and Responsibilies" for a moment.

No one has a "Right to the Labor of another Person" and to secure that labor the employer has "Responsibilities" that includes delivering a product or service to the market that generates enough revenue to provide adequate compensation for the employee to live on.

The employee doesn't determine the products or services that the employer "sells" on the market. All the employee does is provide the labor so that the owner can provide a product or service. The employee, that produces the product or provides the service, does not determine the pricing of the product or service the enterprise is providing, the employer (owner) does.

The employee provides their "time" to employer in the market place and that "time" is equal in value, at the bare minimum, to what is necessary for the employee's basic support and comfort. It would be illogical to believe anything else. An employee should not be required to work all day and then beg on the corner at night. The person should "work for a living" and that alone implies that they should be able to live based upon working and not have to beg to survive. While we don't use the term (because it would be politically incorrect) a person applying for welfare assistance is "begging" for assistance because they cannot survive without it.

It's the responsibility of the employer, that is selling the labor of the employee in the market place, to ensure that the employee is adequately compensated for their time regardless of what the tasks might be that the employer chooses to use the employee's time for. The employer should never require their employees to beg for assistance to survive after they get off work.

 

I disagree. People don't have the right to other people's money.

 

Poor people are screwed.

We yell at them to get jobs. But the jobs many can get pay minimum wage which puts them below the poverty level. Then we yell at them for not having a better job. But there is a finite supply of better jobs and literally no way in which all minimum wage workers could eventually end up landing one. So basically there will always be people on the bottom and they will always be a target for those folks who think the difference between poor people and not poor people is that not poor people work hard and poor people do not.

If there will always be poor people because there is a finite supply of better paying jobs, can you really blame them for wanting to increase the wages they make for their hard work?

The problem isn't that these folks have no skills, the problem is that our economy relies on minimum wage workers. Big business NEEDS them. Does that not seem like a conflict of interest?

 

I agree. Nobody has the right to have me work for them. If they want me to do so, they have to make it worth my while.

If I can't produce enough income to support myself, it's not my employer's fault. It's my fault. I am responsible for my own life, and that includes learning a skill or operating a business that provides me a living. If I have failed to do so, then it's nobody's fault but my own.

 

Whether you like it or not, employers DO NOT set the wage scales. Workers must agree on a wage or they won't work...it is this simple. Place an ad saying you need 10 workers for 2 weeks and the pay is $3/hour...how many workers will take this? If you increase this to $4, then $5, then $7.25, then $25/hour at each wage level an employer will be able to attract, and maintain the necessary workers. Once the employer understands the cost of labor, they can then decide if a business venture can be viable.

For the umpteenth time, if you greatly increase the lower wages to whatever you consider is a 'livable wage', over time, you will increase all other wages proportionately, create inflation, and the identical people will again be in so-called poverty. Meanwhile companies will struggle to compete and keep the doors open.

Please state what you believe is a 'livable wage'?

 

Actually...there are no 'rights' whatsoever. A 'right' is a subjective and political tool. Why not have the 'right' to earn $50/hour? The 'right' to own a home? The 'right' to drive a new car? The 'right' to $150 athletic shoes?

It is laughable to consider this; A guy owns a laundry, he needs an employee to wash clothes, and the job pays $10/hour, and in his first interview, the job applicant says 'BTW I have a right to be able to live off the compensation you pay' so $10 won't cut...I'll need more like $20/hour...

 

Wages have been effectively falling behind, yes. It's one sneaky mechanism by which the wealth disparity between what amount to the financial class and the working class in this country, closely analogous the 1% and the 99%, since it's permitted companies, namely their executives and shareholders, to keep ever more profits for themselves. Ask a lot of deluded people and they'll tell you that this is a good thing, that companies are supposed to make big profits, that they exist for that reason! They're deluded in that they're being shortsighted about the repercussions of that. It means that those who aren't benefiting from stocks are losing as a direct result of this, not gaining.

Then you have things like 401(k)s, which of course are supposed to return some of that benefit to anyone who invests in such an account, but the gains there are again stagnant at best because of inflation, the same thing that causes salaries and wages to stagnate or fall even as they appear to increase. You can think our goofy baseless currency for that. Its value has no anchor, so it can be manipulated and manipulated by a few central planners. In the past they had to debase currencies, kind of like what happened in recent history with the penny and other coins when their metals were altered to make them less expensive to produce. When currency was real money (gold and silver), the powers that were had to debase it by reducing the amount of those metals in the coinage. Now it's all just a computer blip, though, and they just fire up the printing press (well, really it never stops these days) to produce more currency with absolutely no base value to further dilute the pool and rob us all. It's those who collect high amounts of interest who profit and gain, not those of us who work for that paper or invest it for a lower interest return.

In sum, the vast majority of us are being robbed continually, but in small enough increments and behind sufficient a sufficient smokescreen, that we don't really see and understand what's happening, though we can feel it ever so subtly.

 

Directly? The value of my earnings is constantly falling thanks to inflation for one, as described above. Another direct way I am robbed is by national, state and local government through taxation. Yet another is by companies passing all of their costs and high executive salaries on to me. Another comes in the form of fees, say at the bank, where an overdraft means losing a whopping $37 at present, and that amount has gone up from where it was in the past. Again, inflation.

Regarding stock market investment, I think many just don't know how to get into it. There is also the risk there of losing rather than gaining, and of the returns being too small to be worthwhile, all depending on the form of investment. But no matter who is investing, that investment is generating new currency from nothing and giving it to the investor in exchange for... nothing. No work performed, no value added. Now there is robbery, namely of the laborer who does not invest. Apparently under the system as it exists today, everyone is supposed to be a stock market investor. What an insane system! It encourages taking from honest laborers and giving to those who simply invest. Is it any wonder there is so much money not in the hands of those who need and deserve it most? People are earning less so that investors can reap more.

 

There is no guarantee that wages will parallel inflation. If there is much more labor supply than demand this will hold wages lower. If there is competitive pressure this might hold wages lower. If a company cannot afford to give higher wages or take the risk this might hold wages down. If a worker is a poor performer this might hold wages down. Lots of reasons why wages won't necessarily parallel inflation. If a worker falls into any of these categories, and others, the worker must take steps to change something.

You can't run a nation like the USA without taxation? Where do you think the government funding should come from?

Companies must expense all costs, including salaries, which do affect consumer pricing. But they can't be crazy about this because they must compete! Further, shareholders demand accountability.

If you can't afford overdraft fees then don't allow overdrafts. If you can't afford a speeding ticket then don't speed.

You claimed others are earning a living from stocks, etc. so what's keeping anyone from being involved?

Sure there is a risk of loss...it's not all roses! People want big gains then they must take risks...lower gains equal lower risk.

Why must there be work involved when someone earns something? There's no work involved in a bank loaning money but we would have no economy if they didn't.

When people earn interest on stocks it is not taking money from anyone? They are like an asset...you buy the asset today for $10 and hopefully down the road you can sell it for more than $10 taking into consideration commissions, taxes, etc. The money from the initial stock offering goes to the company and all further stock offerings goes to the company...which is all good. If you buy a painting for $100 and sell it later for $300 are you taking money from someone?

Lastly, I know very few people who live within their means. Those who do not, no matter their income, are at fault for reckless fiscal management. Most of us waste our money on stupid purchases, on reckless spending, then we complain we don't have enough money...

 

I have to disagree. The employer has a right to profit from the labor of the employee but only after the employee receives just compensation for that labor.

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of many people. There is a "division of wealth" related to the employment contract but it's the employee, not the employer, that's creating the wealth. It's the employee that creates the "widget" or that sells the "widget" and not the employer. The employee produces the "goods" or provides the "service" and not the employer. The employer provides the opportunity for the employee to "create the wealth" and for providing that opportunity the employer has a "right" to share in the profit from the wealth that the employee creates but only after the employee is adequtely compensated for their labor.

Once again there has to be equity in the employment contract. It's not all about the employer making money. In return for "making money" the employer needs to ensure that the needs (i.e. basic support and comfort) of the employee are met. There must be that equity in the economic system because both the employer and employee are equally necessary for the economy to work property.

The economy must be based upon a "win-win" situation because when it's based upon a "win-lose" situation it's doomed to failure.

 

This is the fundamental flaw that exists when the "Market" is unopposed. If the worker is producing "X amount of wealth" with their labor that amount of wealth creation does not change based upon the labor Market. The worker is entitled to just compensation based the wealth they're creating with their labor but the Market is not concerned with either "just compensation" or the "wealth created" by the employee. The Market is only concerned with the "enterprise" and not the "person" which is why it ALWAYS strives to suppress the cost of labor to it's lowest possible amount.

There has to be an opposing force to the downward pressure of the Market on compensation where compensation is "negotiated" and a mutually agreeable compensation is acheived and we had that during the "rise of the middle class" during the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. During those three decades we had the power of organized labor that negotiated compensation with enterprise but since then, based upon anti-union legislation (by Republicans that favor enterprise over the worker) there is no longer negotiation to establish compensation based upon wealth creation and the middle class is disappearing before our eyes.

I recently took a random month and addressed "investment transactions" and compared them to "public offerings" by corporations and the percentage of investments that fund corporations was less than 0.00005%. In short if we round off to 1/1000th the percentage of investments funding enterprise is 0%.

An interesting analogy on the painting. If the painting is worth $300 then how much of that $300 is the artist that created it entitled to? The artist created the value and not the person in possession of the painting. Shouldn't the artist receive a royalty on the sale? Was not the artist, that might have only been paid the original $100, being robbed when the painting is worth $300? We can relate this to the music and movie industries where the "artists" were robbed of future revenues related to the music or movies through nefarious contracts. We know about the child actors where their parents squandered the income from their movie careers. Yes, you can argue that it was "perfectly legal" but that doesn't imply the artist wasn't robbed of their fair share of the wealth they created through their labor.

We can apply this same logic to the enterprise that actually increases three-fold in value resulting in the stock value increasing from $100 per share to $300 per share. Who was it that increased the value of the corporation is the key question and the answer is obvious. It wasn't the stockholder but instead it was the employee(s) of the enterprise that produce the product or that provide the service that increased the actual value of the corporation three-fold. The stockholders did absolutely nothing to increase the value of the corporation.

 

What you say is true but it isn't relevant to the actual issue. I've told you this before and I will tell you again: The issue is that the govt forces businesses to pay everyone a certain level of wages. The objection people have (or should have) to the minimum wage (any minimum wage) is that the govt must use force or coercion to achieve it's objective.

 

While the cost of living varies by location in the United States I can provide an anecdotal case based upon where I live (Snohomish County, WA) for consideration. The following link provides the "Living Wage" results for where I live. Scroll down to the Typical Expenses chart.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/53061

We'll use those results even though they omit many necessary expenditures (e.g. retirement investments) and under estimate others (i.e. a single person can't purchase a health insurance policy for $110/mo) but we'll use it anyway. We can note that in all of the examples it assumes a single income source except for two adults and no children (i.e. there are no child care expenses for two adults with children so it has to be assumed one parent is taking care of the kids).

The average "hourly wage" in the United States is currently $10.55/hr and based upon a standard work year (2080 hrs) the annual income is $21,944. There are only two instances, a single adult with no children and two working adults with no children, where the average hourly wage in the United States provides enough income for the family to pay for the minimum necessary expenditures. In no other cases is is possible to "live within their means" because the income is inadequate to accomplish that regardless of how frugal they are. Not even Ebenezer Scrooge, the poster child of the social conservatives, could "live within his means" if he was in the bottom half of hourly workers.

Social conservatives enjoy blaming the inability of the person to "live within their means" on "reckless fiscal management" ignoring the fact that when the wages don't fund the necessary expenditures they can't live within their means regardless of their spending habits.

If the person has enough income and is not living within their means then the social-conservative argument of "stupid purchases, on reckless spending, and reckless fiscal management" is valid. The next time Donald Trump declares bankruptcy we can blame it on stupid purchases, reckless spending, and reckless fiscal management because that is the cause for the bankruptcy.

When the person doesn't have the income to live within their means then the argument is invalid.

 

Guess what, if the owners of enterprise were responsible then there would be no necessity for government interventionism. Hell, if we just had the power of organized labor in the United States that has been gutted by the Republican political agenda that is exclusively for the enterprise at the expense of the employee we wouldn't have the need for government interventionism.

I keep saying this over and over. We need balance to offset the downward pressure on compensation imposed by the market and traditionally that opposing pressure was provided for by organized labor. In 1954 the US had the highest percentage of union represented workers and it built the middle class in America. The year 1979 reflected the highest number of union workers historically and since then union membership in both numbers and percentage have declined because of anti-union (union busting) legislation based upon the Republican agenda. Today union memberhip is at the lowest point in 76 years... and we've seen the corresponding decline of the middle class starting in 1980 and most significantly since 2008.

We need balance between the employer and the employee and that balance doesn't exist because of the Republican "pro-enterprise/anti-worker" agenda that began to destroy the middle class in the 1980's under President Reagan.

It's been the pro-business/anti-worker Republican political agenda that's gotten us into the fix we're in today. Even if we reverse the anti-union laws it will take decades or even generations to recover. The government has to do something because the government is responsible for the problem based upon the Republican agenda.

 

Employment is a win-win. The worker performs a service the employer wants done, and the employer pays the worker for performing this service. However, the worker only has a right to the agree to wages. Nobody has a right to the property of others.

 

Guess what? If men observed preferred morals, theists wouldn't have to threaten them with hell. What's your point? What kind of "responsibility" do you have in mind? You think it should be a crime to judge the value of labor and pay accordingly?? Someone has to make people pay what ever anyone thinks is right?? What is right to you?? How do you justify imposing morality on others??

 

It is only a "Win-Win" situation if both the employer and the employee can profit (i.e. have income in excess of basic expenditures) from the employment contract. If the employer is "operating at a profiting" while the employee is "operating at a loss" it's a Win-Lose situation.

The person forced to accept employment has not "agreed" to the wage but instead was forced to "accept" the wage and there is a huge difference between the two. Only the wealthy can refuse employment.

 

Did you intentionally ignore the rest of my statement simply to argue a false point?

We need "balance" where compensation is negotiated between the enterprise and the workers but that balance has been lost because of politicans focused exclusively upon the "enterprise" with complete disregard for the workers. The politicans created an inbalance that, even if addressed, would require decades just to restore some semblance of balance.

The economic boat is sinking right now because pro-business politicans drilled holes in the bottom and the water is pouring it. Even if we started patching the holes today the boat is still sinking. If all of the holes could be magically patched instantly the boat is still half-way under water. Something more needs to be done. We actually have to start fixing the holes and bailing the water out of the boat.

As a libertarian do I like the fact that the boat is so far underwater that it's going to require government interventionism to bail out the water? Hell no I don't like it but I know it has to be done. I would have far rather the "pro-enterprise/anti-worker" laws had never been created but the fact is that they do exist and the boat is sinking because of it.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and if anyone should know these are desperate times it should be Republicans that are up on arms about the dramatic increase in government spending on welfare assistance. They like to blame Obama and the Democrats but if we look at a program like SNAP the enrollment has increased by 400% (since the 2008 Recession) based upon the criteria established in 2003 (as I recall) and not because Obama and the Democrats changed the qualification criteria for benefits. The reason there is a 4-fold increase since in the number of households collecting SNAP benefits is because 4-times as many people are living in poverty and they can't afford to put food on the table.

You don't fix the problem of spreading poverty in the United States by cutting off welfare benefits and blaming Obama and the Democrats. The economic boat of the United States is sinking and something drastic needs to be done to keep it afloat.

 

The employee does profit. He gets money in exchange for the service he provides.

 

Employees work at will...no one holding a gun to anyone's head. The employee and employer enter a contract to perform work for an agreed upon price. Just compensation is determined during this process.

An employee is no different than a machine or sub-contractor, etc. since all of them perform work tasks. Each one has a cost of doing business, an expense, which determines the viability of the business model.

Regarding labor, if you have five people in the lobby, all wanting to work for you, all with identical skills, and you can only hire one of them, and these five people already know you advertised $20/hour, when you are interviewing one of them they tell you 'I'll be glad to work for $15/hour because I really need to get this job'...what are you going to do? Well...if you don't hire this person for $15/hour your competition will and now your business is in jeopardy! Workers determine their compensation based on what they are willing to work for...not by what companies wish to pay. If a company wishes to pay $3/hour for the above worker they won't have employees and if they pay $50/hour they won't be able to compete.

Larger companies constantly evaluate the labor markets to fully understand compensation in order to attract and maintain the best employees. Generally they do not want to pay more or less than the market is suggesting. This is precisely why some people get 1% wage increases while others get 8%...this is the adjusting of wages to keep them in pace with the labor market. A company like Microsoft with tens of billion$ in cash certainly pay their key employees slightly over the market wages in order to attract and maintain the best and the brightest. But no matter all that cash on hand, they will not simply increase everyone's wages by 25% because then they no longer can compete.

Without the employer there are no jobs! Your precious labor in the business sense is almost meaningless because labor can be found all across Earth. These companies have off-shore facilities, outsource, and hire foreign labor many times because the local labor is inferior or too expensive or in shortage, etc. It is constant employee problems and cost which encourage automation.

The ONLY win-win scenario regarding labor is when companies can attract and maintain employees while satisfying demand and earning profits. A guy in an automobile factory who picks up a tire and places it on the car and tightens a few bolts should thank their lucky stars they are protected by unions! Because in the open labor markets, this guy can be replaced in one day, with a less expensive worker, who will perform equal production and quality. And when all workers become a nuisance a robot will replace all of them. This is not about worker 'rights' or 'living wages' or 'politics'...it is how business operates...

 

All employees are paid based on their contributions to the business as well as supply and demand of labor. In a company building missiles the person sweeping the floor should earn $12/hour, the person attaching a wire harness to an assembly should earn $15/hour, the person testing the unit gets $20/hour, the supervisor holding the whole thing together get $25/hour, etc...all of them receiving something for their contributions. But all of them cannot earn $25/hour because all of them have varying contributions and are effected by the supply and demand differently. The great thing for employees are those earning $12/hour can obtain some education, work hard, be patient and eventually become management...this is how it works.

The artist sold their interest in the asset...they are finished. If the artist sold the piece and negotiated royalties on reproductions then it's different...but 99.9999999% of sales do not include royalty agreements...

 

Hijacking the private sector, demanding/forcing labor compensation increases, for zero increase in productivity, will never work! How much work at Boeing has been automated or sent off-shore because US wages demanded by unions were out of control? You can be idealistic and believe that low-skilled and low-education workers must earn your living wage...whatever this might be? But in doing so you ignore the direct ramifications to the business and how your actions will force business to search other options...this has been going on for years! I don't know a single business owner or manager who does not prefer having all their interests and employees in the USA...but when the high cost of doing business in the USA will not allow this to happen, the choices for the business are very clear.

BTW; it is stupid and insulting of you to constantly preface your comments with ASSUMPTIONS that anyone who opposes your viewpoints must be Republican, or social conservatives, etc. This is political BS and bravado and nothing else!