Practical Minimum Wage

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by Arphen, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. Arphen

    Arphen Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://mwwuamerica.blogspot.ru/2012/08/analyziing-pracitcal-minimum-wage.html#ixzz3KhIIl8d3

    It is our position that people who want to live at a certain standard of living must seek the education, skills mastery and initiative to gain employment that provides them the means to live that lifestyle.

    Paying people more than their contributions are worth is nothing less than a welfare state and demeans the human spirit that embraces reward for accomplishment and contribution, demoralizes the individual who strives for more than a hand out and diminishes the worth of every human being to the lowest denominator
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The important question is "what is the role of the minimum wage?". Its used in western nations to control for the damaging effects of monopsony (i.e. market power). The silly right do not appreciate that, when they sneer at the minimum wage, they are attacking the very defence of capitalism. But what good is the minor redistribution of economic rents from employer to deserving employee? The overall effect on working poverty is marginal. But what if we change the focus to a living wage? It leads to blubbering amongst the status quo. Why? Because we'd have to change our understanding to one of supporting a meritocracy. Workers paid according to their worth? Crikey, they forgot what worth meant when they voted for authoritarian fools like Reagan...
     
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think this is a most important thread on this sub-forum and also why it isn't populated. Is there any right winger able to support their position or do we have the obvious, they support 'working poverty' underpayment?
     
  4. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The answer is "of course not, right wingers don't do economics".
     
  5. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe a higher minimum wage can play a part in creating a better economy. But it is not the end all solution.
    At a fundamental level, we cannot mandate that people be paid what we think they ought to have. Because that places all the burden on the employer and ultimately the consumer, and rather than paying them all it will simply discourage economic activity and result in increasing unemployment.


    It's not all about what might theoretically be the most beneficial for the widest segment of society. Right and wrong also play some role, as well as practicality, that the government is not going to be the perfect efficient referee you think it could be.
     
  6. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The budgeted numbers are a bit high for a teen entering into the workforce.

    Tithes = $160/mo
    Savings = 160
    Room Rent = 400
    Heat & lights = 150
    Food = 250
    Clothing = 25
    Bus pass = 125
    Emergency = 50

    $1,380/mo wages divided by 175 hrs = $7.80 hr.
     
  7. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Minimum wage is not about the teens entering the workforce it's about making sure the citizens of the country have a safety net in case troubles should arise say a working mother who is re-entering the workforce. true the above estimates are high in my mind and the Original opinion is emotionally biased (selling minimum wage rather than arguing for) he is nevertheless correct $7.80 is too low and 10.10 which to my understanding is the current goal is too high $51,100 is the avg consumer expenditure per year for the fiscal year of 2013 minimum wage should reflect a portion of that
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The minimum wage should be eliminated. It makes no economic sense and results in reduced employment for those who most need a job (specifically low productivity workers due to lack of education, training, and/or experience). Social safety nets are in place to assist those who are truly in need but the best job training is to have a job.
     
  9. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in what way does it not make economic sense to provide people with a semblance of protection against predatory employers, these people (immigrants, highschool dropouts, the elderly) need to have a basis from which to build something to protect them so they can study for say a G.E.D, or a community college, or a technical institute, or perhaps they just need to have a sense of security while raising their children these people are not moochers they are contributing members who can contribute a little more if they are not homeless. these americans should be protected even if they were moochers

    "The chief purpose of government is to protect life. Abandon that, and you have abandoned all."​
    -thomas jefferson​
     
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the price of something is increased you will get less of it. In this case the result will be fewer people employed. And the people who will lose their jobs are those who are the least productive and the most in need of job experience. What is a predatory employer ??
     
  11. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    a predatory employer is someone who hires people "under the table" so they need not pay minimum wage (it's also someone who mistreats their employees either through unexpected pay cuts or bodily harm). where did you learn economics the more spending power the consumer has the more they will buy. small business' will not be effected by a dollar pay bump in minimum wage and the companies who will have enough revenue to cover it and still make a hefty profit, example since people like to pick on Walmart we will go with them Walmart employs 1.4 million people in the U.S alone according to CEO Doug McMillon 6,000 get minimum wage (probably a low ball estimate) the current minimum federal wage is $7.25/hour so a 40 hour workweek comes to just over $290 a week over 4 weeks $1,260 a month and $15,120/ year which is enough to support one person over the poverty level. all told the 6,000 people on minimum wage equals just over 90,000,000 which seems like a lot until you look at its profits for the fiscal year of 2014 which is $279 billion plus the $57 billion from sam's club so over $300 billion/$90 million is 0.0003% so i believ they can afford to give their employees an extra $1 which amounts to 11,520,000 + 90,720,000= 102,240,000 over the 6,000 employees 11,520,000 man hours
    http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
    http://news.walmart.com/walmart-facts/corporate-financial-fact-sheet
     
  12. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Those "predatory" actions are illegal. Why is reducing someone's pay predatory ?? It's better to lay them off than ask them to take a pay cut ??

    Where did you learn economics ?? Price fixing benefits those who accrue more money (winners) but economically harm those who have to pay the prices (losers). Prices of goods affected also go up resulting in fewer items sold resulting in fewer employees (the least productive will be laid off or replaced by technology). Raises in wages should be tied to increases in individual productivity. It's much better to have no lower limit on starting/training pay thus offerring an opportunity for someone with limited skills, education/training, and experience to succeed. Humans take great satisfaction out of work and advancement. Having/raising a minimum wage deprives those who need a job the most and places them exclusively into a public welfare system which is economically corrupting. The best job training is having a job and the best method for developing self respect is to work at a job. Walmart does more for these low productivity individuals than any other corporation in the world. They move into areas in which no other stores will go giving employment opportunities to local workers and giving low prices and quality goods to residents of those areas. Efforts by those who protest the building of Walmart stores do damage to those they profess to protect.
     
  13. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The Average Consumer Spending includes much more that necessities needed to have a roof over one's head, food and clothes, etc. A $300 iPhone with a $150 monthly unlimited data plan is not necessary. Neither is DirecTV with all the premium channels to a 60-" plasma flat screen with a PS-627 [sic] gaming console, or a Cadillac Escalade with 27" chrome rims and a $750 sound system and $3,000 worth of ink.

    You get my drift? Minimum wages are for young people learning how to get up in the morning,arrive to work on time, put in a full day's work for a full day's wage, something that all young people need to learn before moving up the ladder economically. Most jobs start significantly above minimum wages, and the ones that do start at MW the workers may be dropouts with no work experience and need to learn the basic skills mentioned earlier.

    Consider a skills trade business with 100 employees (I had no more than 12 at any one time plus subcontractors), the 16 year old kid from down the street wants a summer job. I hire him at minimum wage for his first job, he sweeps the floors, unloads trucks and learns a little about the building trades helping the young man who has been working for me for 2 years.

    The gub'mint tells me I now have to pay the 16 year old kid to start, with zero experience more than I pay the 2 year apprentice. Is that fair? Should I then increase the apprentice's wages the same percentage (20%) amount he earned from his first day on the job for being on time and learning trade skills? What about the 3 year man, then the 10 year supervisor, and the 12 year site manager, etc. ?

    My whole payroll just increased by 40%, the 20% increase forced on my business by the liberal/socialists in D.C. and the overhead costs for all employees. (Total payroll cost is about 140% - 160% of the Gross Wages on the paystub). I must now either raise my fees to the customer losing customer who either can not afford my (and all similar services) fees or I must eliminate less productive, lower skilled workers and not hire any minimum wage trainees. Which option would you choose?
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, and it is policies like increasing the minimum wage which result in increases in the costs of US production and degradation of profit margin that drive the movement of some parts of production out of the country thus again proving the old axiom "if you want less of something, (economically) tax it."
     
  15. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. how is a $.75 cent increase, (a 10% increase) too much? unless you are paying someone who has apprenticed a valued trade skill at only $8/hour? at $7.25/ hour you make 15,120 a year which is enough to support one person with comfort above the poverty line if this said person is taking care of a kid "In 2012, a total of 305,388 babies were born to women aged 15–19 years, for a live birth rate of 29.4 per 1,000 women in this age group." http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/aboutteenpreg.htm this yearly wage is below the poverty line for a two person household (not to mention repeat teen prgnancies). the minimum wage is meant to make sure citizens of this country have enough leeway that they can work without constantly having to borrow from credit agencies to get by. http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm
     
  16. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

    This only works for a short while until all rates and prices are raised to reflect the mandated increase in wages. And as in my example, the $7.25 increased to $8 pushes up the employee at $8 to $8.80 and the $8.80 employees up to $9.68, etc. So employees get a raise, but pay more. Nothing is changed, really except jobs are lost or not created.
     
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to mention the gov bureaucracy which swings into action to make sure that all employers are compliant with the new standards.
     
  18. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it might be a good idea to have a slightly lower level minimum wage for younger people, who are only working part-time, and for elderly people. These two groups traditionally have higher unemployment, and are viewed by employers as less desirable. It is very important for younger people to be able to "get their foot in the door" and get real job experience. Too high of a minimum wage could discourage this, and contribute to more age inequality.
     
  19. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    except all these employees in the analogy and everyone else has more to spend meaning more in the economy so it balances out the higher wages and allows everyone to have a certain quality of life
     
  20. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just no. these kids who are just now attending college, are getting cars, are beginning to pay rents (with security deposits) are buying the things they need to make it in the world and are for just leaving their parents houses and just establishing good credit need a little extra security in case anything goes wrong especially with the high cost of college
     
  21. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

    They spend more devalued dollars. What once cost a dollar will then cost $1.50. Same item just needs more greenbacks.
     
  22. Independentchip

    Independentchip New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    $1.50 is a pretty steep price hike, but no since the money is already in the economy no one is entering more into the collective "pool" ie the government printing money to pay for social security reforms they money is just going from the hands of the employers to the hands of the employees back to the employers and thus they cycle continues so no change in dollar value plus it cuts down on the need for people to get government benefits cutting back on the amount in the economy cutting back on taxes and saving the economy
    http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
     
  23. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,776
    Likes Received:
    8,611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not true. The winners have more to spend and the losers are unemployed. The total number of earners goes down because less goods are sold but at a higher price. If your analogy were correct then the minimum wage should be increased to $100 per hour. Then everyone could be in the top 1%. :smile:
     
  24. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More gub'mint debt and mandated higher wages decreases the value of each dollar you have or earn.

    This is all well and good for folks who are deep in debt but sucks for folks who have money saved.
     
  25. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,220
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    $100 per hour does not put you in the top 1%. :wink: You need to be worth more per hour than that.

    $100/hr x 2,040 hr./annual = a measly $204,000 annual salary
     

Share This Page