Rise of Minimum wage?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:16 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Yeah, you were talking outta your ass. I was responding to barunt's situation, and then you invent a bunch of nonsense about his situation--as if you were pulling things outta your butt. Hence, talking outta your ass. Gotta call it like I see it, and there's not much of a quicker way to say it.

I'll just chalk the rudeness off to my proposal to my suggestion of leaving free markets out of it then.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.

I do make assumptions from time to time but this isn't one of those times. I've worked alongside minimum wagers and they really don't have any idea of what they are worth beyond the fact that they know they need to survive. I think an employee needs to know how much profit they are actually producing in order to realize what they are worth. Take into account the varying levels self-esteem of any given employee and you've really got a distorted idea of self-worth. I don't see how knowing what one's work is worth should affect someone receiving what one is worth.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"

Take into account the ideas presented in field (1) and you can see how this really doesn't matter. Minimum wagers are not as ambitious as you would like to think BBS, hence their position on the totem pole. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.

I mean really, if the person doesn't earn their wage it's pretty simple: you fire them. This creates initiative for people to work up to snuff.


BigBallinStalin wrote:(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.
(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

[/quote]
I'm not going to focus on the "fairness" from an earner's standpoint if it's got a stigma attached to it in your mind. How about the matter of efficiency since you seem to respect that? How is having people constantly dropping off and being added to a system really going to be efficient? It may be efficient for a single company regarding the cost of keeping people on but as workforce as a whole this can't be good for business.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:29 pm

kentington wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The point is that paying someone more than their labor is worth is stupid (e.g. $100 per hour to shovel dirt---one exception would be a disaster zone where there's high demand for labor, and/or supply of labor is very low). But most people don't get that. They don't understand what marginal labor product is. They don't understand that for every hour of labor, a certain amount of revenue is generated. Paying someone (marginal cost) more than the revenue they generate is stupid.

Hopefully, something nags on people's minds when they think, "Gee, what if I paid everyone a minimum of $100 per hour." Other times, it resorts to emotional knee-jerking and petty insults because of reasons only you know why, amirite?


This is why minimum wage is kind of ridiculous. There are jobs out there that aren't worth minimum wage. Someone else already said it. There are jobs that are valued lower and when they first started were fulfilled by younger people getting work experience and living at home with parents.

In BK's case. This guy may be taking home some extra cash, but he got the job, scheduled it, had the equipment and the risk. If anything goes wrong he is the guy with responsibility. It may seem rude that he paid you less than the other guys, but by your own admission your work wasn't as productive.

Then for some to say don't start a business if you can't pay the employees. Seriously? Don't take the job if it doesn't provide enough for you. If there are no other jobs and you are stuck with that one, then don't complain because at least you will have a job. It sounds harsh but the person who starts a small business is usually in the hole financially for the first years. They aren't taking a paycheck and it is going to pay off debt incurred by starting a business. They are probably risking their house and cars. If you work for less and stick with a small business then you may be there when it grows and benefit from it. If not then at least you have experience and appear more valuable to the next employer.


Yeah, good point. Some miss that point too--about the employer taking those risks. They only look at outcomes where employers' succeeded and then clamor for a "fair" wage, "the boss is making too much"--while ignoring all those other failed outcomes.

Entrepreneurship: The Employee and the Employer
Most employees are entrepreneurs in the same sense as the employer. They are seeking profitable opportunities; however, for most employees, their risks are significantly minor--compared to the employer who borrows to start a business.

With more risk, comes more (expected) reward. If that additional reward was not available (e.g. snatched away by forcing employers to pay more per worker), then the profit signal for entrepreneurial action is removed. Without that profit--that reward for the risk--then entrepreneurship and investment are marginally decreased, and with it, employment, income, consumption, and additional investment.

All of this is connected, but many only see one small aspect of the full picture. They should stop to reflect on the unintended consequences, instead of clamoring for intervention--without even understanding what processes they're disturbing.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:43 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) They are? All of them? And they're totally ignorant? They don't understand the difference between $1/hour and $10/hour of their own labor? They can't even remotely gauge their own value? They can't determine if they or other employees are good, okay, or poor workers? Those are big assumptions.

I do make assumptions from time to time but this isn't one of those times. I've worked alongside minimum wagers and they really don't have any idea of what they are worth beyond the fact that they know they need to survive. I think an employee needs to know how much profit they are actually producing in order to realize what they are worth. Take into account the varying levels self-esteem of any given employee and you've really got a distorted idea of self-worth. I don't see how knowing what one's work is worth should affect someone receiving what one is worth.


Nevertheless, still making big assumptions here.

RE: underlined. Ask yourself: if you are unaware of more profitable opportunities, would that affect your currently profitable opportunities (job)?
If you answer, "yes," then you've answered your own question.

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) Competition and market prices. "What are the other suppliers of labor earning? What are their qualifications?"

Take into account the ideas presented in field (1) and you can see how this really doesn't matter. Minimum wagers are not as ambitious as you would like to think BBS, hence their position on the totem pole. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work.


That's a catchy slogan, but again it doesn't mean anything. The same can be said of the employer/owner. Even if people are not explicitly asking those questions, they still understand the difference between $7/hour and $3/hour. And eventually, they're able to evaluate the various costs and benefits to see if the nominal wages are equal or unequal. If not them, then others will do it for them--hence, market prices set through competition.

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Sure. The same happens to other producers/suppliers--other than labor. As a consumer, you want what you paid for, or you can threaten to stop paying for it.

I mean really, if the person doesn't earn their wage it's pretty simple: you fire them. This creates initiative for people to work up to snuff.


No, that's not the only solution--which you've created--because it's not that simple. For example, consumers may give the producer another chance, and so on and so forth. We should note that you're limiting the range of possibilities into one choice in order to fit everything into your desired conclusion. That's not good.


Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:(4) What is "fair"? Because if you say that's not fair, then we can apply your reasoning consistently. We'll reach similar scenarios that are also "unfair," e.g. the consumer who threatens to stop paying for something received by the supplier. That's unfair! So, now what? You must conclude that it is unfair when a buyer rejects a seller's offer. You can be arbitrary or engage in special pleading (?) by stating that this only applies to sellers and buyers of labor, but that wouldn't seem logical.(5) An empirical matter. Go figure.
(6) What's inefficient? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

I'm not going to focus on the "fairness" from an earner's standpoint if it's got a stigma attached to it in your mind. How about the matter of efficiency since you seem to respect that? How is having people constantly dropping off and being added to a system really going to be efficient? It may be efficient for a single company regarding the cost of keeping people on but as workforce as a whole this can't be good for business.


I have no stigma about fairness. I'm just applying your position consistently, and showing how it leads yourself to silly conclusions. If you're not comfortable with that reductio ad absurdum, then I'd recommend you reflect on your argument by yourself.

Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:01 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

I'm not going to respond to each response because it will soon get out of hand(this sort of posting expands exponentially lol) but I'll try to clarify.
For one thing, I don't understand the argument that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage... If it's worth less than minimum wage you either do it yourself or you delve two less than minimum wage earning jobs to one employee. If you can't do this, then it's worth minimum wage. Just seems like a bs notion.
Minimum wage being low is inefficient because its existence lets many people take on a job only to find its not worth it. Lets face it, minimum wage exists so it ought to reflect the minimum amount that someone is willing to work for long term right?
In my defense as far as the clarity of my stance, I don't always have a nice clear room with a computer without many distractions(not TV, etc. lol) Lame excuse I know but its maybe relevant?
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby kentington on Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:16 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

I'm not going to respond to each response because it will soon get out of hand(this sort of posting expands exponentially lol) but I'll try to clarify.
For one thing, I don't understand the argument that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage... 1. If it's worth less than minimum wage you either do it yourself or you delve two less than minimum wage earning jobs to one employee. If you can't do this, then it's worth minimum wage. Just seems like a bs notion.
2. Minimum wage being low is inefficient because its existence lets many people take on a job only to find its not worth it. 3.Lets face it, minimum wage exists so it ought to reflect the minimum amount that someone is willing to work for long term right?
In my defense as far as the clarity of my stance, I don't always have a nice clear room with a computer without many distractions(not TV, etc. lol) Lame excuse I know but its maybe relevant?


1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.
2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.
3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:24 pm

kentington wrote:1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.
kentington wrote:2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.
kentington wrote:3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby keiths31 on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:03 pm

As a business owner, minimum wage increasing due to government legislation makes my blood boil. I employ over 70 people. Many students. For me to make a profit, my wages can't exceed more than 20% of my revenue. The margins are small, so every little bit makes a huge difference. In Ontario, minimum wage over the last few years has gone from $8.60/hour to $10.25/hour. This was huge. But because my margins are so low, I had to raise my prices. Customers weren't happy, but it was the only way to stay profitable. People don't realize that when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of products/items. So people who make more than minimum wage actually have less buying power. (When I started in the workforce 20 years ago I was making $3.25/hour. Minimum wage has tripled since then...but inflation hasn't tripled in that time. So minimum wage earners now have more buying power than they ever did)

When minimum wage was going up $0.75/year, I increased my long term staff's wages by the same amount to keep them that much above minimum. It cost me a lot in the short term, but saved me a lot in the long term as they were happy.

That being said I am hoping the province is done with the minimum wage increases for a while.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant keiths31
 
Posts: 2200
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario
Medals: 63
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (2)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (7)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (20)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:23 pm

keiths31 wrote:As a business owner, minimum wage increasing due to government legislation makes my blood boil. I employ over 70 people. Many students. For me to make a profit, my wages can't exceed more than 20% of my revenue. The margins are small, so every little bit makes a huge difference. In Ontario, minimum wage over the last few years has gone from $8.60/hour to $10.25/hour. This was huge. But because my margins are so low, I had to raise my prices. Customers weren't happy, but it was the only way to stay profitable. People don't realize that when minimum wage goes up, so does the cost of products/items. So people who make more than minimum wage actually have less buying power.

Less buying power for stuff they don't want you mean? If a business is producing something that people stop buying because the prices rise, that means it's not that attractive an option? Or did they just bitch and keep buying at the new price, which if is the case, what's the problem? The buying power is still there, it's just being spent somewhere where people would rather spend it.
Last edited by Funkyterrance on Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby kentington on Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:57 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.


No, just because a job is worth paying doesn't mean it is worth paying minimum wage. That is not a valid argument.
If there is a job, then it is worth paying.
There is a job.
Thus it is worth paying minimum wage.

Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.


That is inaccurate. You assume that there will be a lot of people in between jobs. If there are a lot of people in between jobs in a certain field, then there is a large supply of those employees. When my wife got out of college she worked at a laboratory. She was paid a small amount and it was considered a starter job. Other labs paid more, but they only hired those with experience. Guess what? That difference in income is experience. Your employer takes a higher risk by hiring new to the field employees.

Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.


Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay. I would make a career of watching TV if it paid enough, but it isn't worth anything. The only reason those dead end jobs are secure is because they pay low. If the employer had to pay more money they would be less secure. You act like every business man has a ton of money and is looking to screw all of their employees.
The revolving door scenario works like this: A guy is hired to do a job that requires high school diploma and no experience. That is a dead end job. It isn't worth more. Yes, they may be a hard worker and they may be smart and they may even have a family with a ton of bills. That doesn't make the job worth more.
Workers work well below their potential even in well paying jobs. Workers work well below their potential when they have no fear of losing their job.

It seems like you have made up your mind on this topic and screw logic.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:20 am

kentington wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:1. There are tasks that don't require much thought or labor, but take time away from an employer that could be better used doing something else. He/she may need only one employee at less than minimum wage. You are adding factors that don't always come into play.

But if the job is worth paying (as you say, the employer has better, more profitable things to do) then it's worth paying minimum wage right? BBS would say: Markets.


No, just because a job is worth paying doesn't mean it is worth paying minimum wage. That is not a valid argument.
If there is a job, then it is worth paying.
There is a job.
Thus it is worth paying minimum wage.

Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:2. It is the employers prerogative. If they find that the rate of turn over is too high and he keeps having to train new people, then he will raise the wage.

Yeah, I already addressed this. If the cost to keep an employee is greater than the cost to hire a new one, etc., etc... This system may work for that specific employer but it doesn't work for the workforce as a whole. You just have a lot of people "in between" jobs with this system.


That is inaccurate. You assume that there will be a lot of people in between jobs. If there are a lot of people in between jobs in a certain field, then there is a large supply of those employees. When my wife got out of college she worked at a laboratory. She was paid a small amount and it was considered a starter job. Other labs paid more, but they only hired those with experience. Guess what? That difference in income is experience. Your employer takes a higher risk by hiring new to the field employees.

Funkyterrance wrote:
kentington wrote:3. There are jobs that aren't meant for long term work. Now you can see why minimum wage is ridiculous. A burger flipper shouldn't be looking to make a career out of it. If the burger flipper decides to continue working, then it is his/her decision and they have decided it because the wage is worth it.

He might make a career out of it if he made more. There are tons of jobs that are basically dead ends but people continue doing them because they're secure. What's the benefit of having a revolving door of people who are working a job because nobody else will do it for that kind of money? The result is workers working well below their potential and therefore low level producers/inefficient.


Just because someone might make a career out of it doesn't mean it is worth more pay. I would make a career of watching TV if it paid enough, but it isn't worth anything. The only reason those dead end jobs are secure is because they pay low. If the employer had to pay more money they would be less secure. You act like every business man has a ton of money and is looking to screw all of their employees.
The revolving door scenario works like this: A guy is hired to do a job that requires high school diploma and no experience. That is a dead end job. It isn't worth more. Yes, they may be a hard worker and they may be smart and they may even have a family with a ton of bills. That doesn't make the job worth more.
Workers work well below their potential even in well paying jobs. Workers work well below their potential when they have no fear of losing their job.

It seems like you have made up your mind on this topic and screw logic.

Nah, just your scenarios tend to be seeing the picture strictly from an upper-middle class standpoint. You seem to be undermining the ramifications of keeping it ridiculously low to the point where no one can reasonably live sustainably on it. You're acting like minimum wage jobs are reserved for teenagers and college students/fresh graduates. I've seen the nuts and bolts of several successful small businesses and the employees are at the mercy of the honesty of their employers, which tends to be in short supply. Money is being made by any small business that is large enough to have to hire employees and is running things smartly and adapting properly. If you are taking a loss by hiring out then the few dollars an hour you lose from paying your employees isn't going to make a wit of difference. You are doing something wrong.
I'm not saying force companies to hire people, I'm saying encourage companies to run things efficiently enough so that their workers are paid a reasonable living for their sweat. Sweat, somewhere, somehow, is what makes the money, contrary to popular belief. The management is just there to keep the machine oiled. Just hope that minimum wagers never learn the royal stiffing they are being served because if enough of them do it's going to be a rude awakening for the paper pushers.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby kentington on Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:31 am

Funkyterrance wrote:Nah, just your scenarios tend to be seeing the picture strictly from an upper-middle class standpoint. You seem to be undermining the ramifications of keeping it ridiculously low to the point where no one can reasonably live sustainably on it. You're acting like minimum wage jobs are reserved for teenagers and college students/fresh graduates. I've seen the nuts and bolts of several successful small businesses and the employees are at the mercy of the honesty of their employers, which tends to be in short supply. Money is being made by any small business that is large enough to have to hire employees and is running things smartly and adapting properly. If you are taking a loss by hiring out then the few dollars an hour you lose from paying your employees isn't going to make a wit of difference. You are doing something wrong.
I'm not saying force companies to hire people, I'm saying encourage companies to run things efficiently enough so that their workers are paid a reasonable living for their sweat. Sweat, somewhere, somehow, is what makes the money, contrary to popular belief. The management is just there to keep the machine oiled. Just hope that minimum wagers never learn the royal stiffing they are being served because if enough of them do it's going to be a rude awakening for the paper pushers.


You say that I only focus on the upper-middle class which is not true. I have made minimum wage and I have made less than minimum wage.
This bolded part shows that you seem to think that minimum wage workers are the hardest working people and that everyone is taking advantage of them. There is more to management than keeping the machine well oiled. They are bringing in new customers, dealing with unhappy customers, dealing with payroll, and multiple other jobs that require experience and degrees. They do sweat and work hard. A lot of them are salary based and work over time at no extra pay and even holidays. This means that they are making less per hour than it seems. Those paper pushers do more than just file paper work. If they don't, then they probably aren't making as much as you assume.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:52 am

kentington wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Nah, just your scenarios tend to be seeing the picture strictly from an upper-middle class standpoint. You seem to be undermining the ramifications of keeping it ridiculously low to the point where no one can reasonably live sustainably on it. You're acting like minimum wage jobs are reserved for teenagers and college students/fresh graduates. I've seen the nuts and bolts of several successful small businesses and the employees are at the mercy of the honesty of their employers, which tends to be in short supply. Money is being made by any small business that is large enough to have to hire employees and is running things smartly and adapting properly. If you are taking a loss by hiring out then the few dollars an hour you lose from paying your employees isn't going to make a wit of difference. You are doing something wrong.
I'm not saying force companies to hire people, I'm saying encourage companies to run things efficiently enough so that their workers are paid a reasonable living for their sweat. Sweat, somewhere, somehow, is what makes the money, contrary to popular belief. The management is just there to keep the machine oiled. Just hope that minimum wagers never learn the royal stiffing they are being served because if enough of them do it's going to be a rude awakening for the paper pushers.


You say that I only focus on the upper-middle class which is not true. I have made minimum wage and I have made less than minimum wage.
This bolded part shows that you seem to think that minimum wage workers are the hardest working people and that everyone is taking advantage of them. There is more to management than keeping the machine well oiled. They are bringing in new customers, dealing with unhappy customers, dealing with payroll, and multiple other jobs that require experience and degrees. They do sweat and work hard. A lot of them are salary based and work over time at no extra pay and even holidays. This means that they are making less per hour than it seems. Those paper pushers do more than just file paper work. If they don't, then they probably aren't making as much as you assume.

Well, I've been in management positions so I do realize the role they play but I too have worked for minimum wage(never less though, how does that even work lol?). I didn't mean to undermine management and I probably layed it on a little thick. I suppose my angle is that minimum wagers are seeming to be painted in the light of being disposable to some degree or other. I don't believe I've ever heard of a manager of any sort making minimum wage but it's arguable that a manager creates no more profit than any one of their workers. They've got a different skill set of course but the actual productivity is questionable, depending on the industry. I get the impression that the reason minimum wagers are paid minimum wage is because they aren't smart enough to realize their own worth. My argument is that perceived knowledge of one's worth should not dictate one's worth. The gap between the perceived worth of the minimum wager and the actual worth(in an efficiently run business) I believe is staggering.
An analogy:
A poor, ignorant man lives in a small shack with his wife and many children. A man from the city comes to him and says he will pay him 10 cents for every shiny stone he finds in the mountains. The man toils and scratches the hills and finds many of these shiny rocks and gives them to the man from the city on a regular basis. As you may have guessed, the shiny rocks are diamonds and he's made the man from the city rich while he still lives in poverty. Is this a good system? Who has been more productive?
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Medals: 22
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (1)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby kentington on Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:09 am

Funkyterrance wrote:Well, I've been in management positions so I do realize the role they play but I too have worked for minimum wage(never less though, how does that even work lol?). I didn't mean to undermine management and I probably layed it on a little thick. I suppose my angle is that minimum wagers are seeming to be painted in the light of being disposable to some degree or other. I don't believe I've ever heard of a manager of any sort making minimum wage but it's arguable that a manager creates no more profit than any one of their workers. They've got a different skill set of course but the actual productivity is questionable, depending on the industry. I get the impression that the reason minimum wagers are paid minimum wage is because they aren't smart enough to realize their own worth. My argument is that perceived knowledge of one's worth should not dictate one's worth. The gap between the perceived worth of the minimum wager and the actual worth(in an efficiently run business) I believe is staggering.
An analogy:
A poor, ignorant man lives in a small shack with his wife and many children. A man from the city comes to him and says he will pay him 10 cents for every shiny stone he finds in the mountains. The man toils and scratches the hills and finds many of these shiny rocks and gives them to the man from the city on a regular basis. As you may have guessed, the shiny rocks are diamonds and he's made the man from the city rich while he still lives in poverty. Is this a good system? Who has been more productive?


When I made less than minimum wage it was working for a company picnic place. They would pay you cash. :)
In the analogy: This seems more like a third world country scenario. This is the skeevy kind of guy who is going to pay you cash for the job and forget minimum wage. Someone who is exploiting to this extent only cares about money and the fastest way to get it.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm
Medals: 9
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:19 am

Funkyterrance wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Wait, so what's inefficient exactly? How is it inefficient? And compared to what?

If you don't feel like clarifying your own stance, then perhaps your own stance is not at all clear to even you... I really don't want to run in circles until you get your position about efficiency clarified here.

I'm not going to respond to each response because it will soon get out of hand(this sort of posting expands exponentially lol) but I'll try to clarify.
For one thing, I don't understand the argument that some jobs are worth less than minimum wage... If it's worth less than minimum wage you either do it yourself or you delve two less than minimum wage earning jobs to one employee. If you can't do this, then it's worth minimum wage. Just seems like a bs notion.
Minimum wage being low is inefficient because its existence lets many people take on a job only to find its not worth it. Lets face it, minimum wage exists so it ought to reflect the minimum amount that someone is willing to work for long term right?
In my defense as far as the clarity of my stance, I don't always have a nice clear room with a computer without many distractions(not TV, etc. lol) Lame excuse I know but its maybe relevant?


Internships.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3586
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Rise of Minimum wage?

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 5:42 am

kentington wrote:This is why minimum wage is kind of ridiculous. There are jobs out there that aren't worth minimum wage. Someone else already said it. There are jobs that are valued lower and when they first started were fulfilled by younger people getting work experience and living at home with parents.

To pay a high school kid low wages is one thing, but claiming that is really what minimum wage is about is a distortion of the reality.. or is ONLY the reality for the true minimum. Most people make 5-10 cents more, enough to claim they are not making minimum, but not enough to fill anyones pocketbook. The bottom line is that people are worth more. That applies at the bottom, not just the top. To claim that one person, with any skills is actually worth 2 million a year.. but another person is not worth more than $7.35 an hour is ridiculous. The difference in skills is not THAT great, sorry.. it just isn't unless you live in a distorted world where "worth" is set by artificial ideas and not realities.

kentington wrote:In BK's case. This guy may be taking home some extra cash, but he got the job, scheduled it, had the equipment and the risk. If anything goes wrong he is the guy with responsibility. It may seem rude that he paid you less than the other guys, but by your own admission your work wasn't as productive.

Note that BK was not being paid even close to minimum wage at the time. BIG difference!

kentington wrote:Then for some to say don't start a business if you can't pay the employees. Seriously? Don't take the job if it doesn't provide enough for you. If there are no other jobs and you are stuck with that one, then don't complain because at least you will have a job. It sounds harsh but the person who starts a small business is usually in the hole financially for the first years. They aren't taking a paycheck and it is going to pay off debt incurred by starting a business. They are probably risking their house and cars. If you work for less and stick with a small business then you may be there when it grows and benefit from it. If not then at least you have experience and appear more valuable to the next employer.
That " I am taking a loss" bit is garbage. Sure, you start a business you take a risk.. AND you stand to gain a whole lot, you get to set your basic conditions, etc, etc. Above all, its your choice to run or not run the business.

When it comes to employment.. people HAVE to work to get by. The problem today is that when you hire someone for low wage, you can pretend you are giving them something, but only becuase other taxpayers are stepping up (not by choice) to pay part of your employees living expenses. THAT is why the system is skewed. You are not truly paying "market wages" you are paying the least wage you possibly can get away with for a time.. just like many jerks will pollute if the law doesn't step in, even though it causes harm to everyone else, will even sell outright dangerous products and fake tests to "prove" its good if there is not enough oversight... gee, some people even creat fictitious investment "opportunities: and make huge killings.. at the expense of many others.

THAT is why laws are needed. People at the bottom cannot "fight" for themselves, because as you said, there are not that many jobs out there and they need what they can get. Skills are irrelevant.

Oh, and on that bit about skills.. ask yourself why sn an institutional cook tends to make 8,maybr 9 an hour , but the guy who mows the lawn often makes at least $10? Think the fact that its mostly women has anything at all to do with it...
YES, it does. And its also why nurses get paid less than legal assistants, though that nurse is the one who may well determine if you live or die based on her care. The market is about people manipulating prices, not any ultimate truth.


Yeah, good point. Some miss that point too--about the employer taking those risks. They only look at outcomes where employers' succeeded and then clamor for a "fair" wage, "the boss is making too much"--while ignoring all those other failed outcomes.

Entrepreneurship: The Employee and the Employer
Most employees are entrepreneurs in the same sense as the employer. They are seeking profitable opportunities; however, for most employees, their risks are significantly minor--compared to the employer who borrows to start a business.

With more risk, comes more (expected) reward. If that additional reward was not available (e.g. snatched away by forcing employers to pay more per worker), then the profit signal for entrepreneurial action is removed. Without that profit--that reward for the risk--then entrepreneurship and investment are marginally decreased, and with it, employment, income, consumption, and additional investment.

All of this is connected, but many only see one small aspect of the full picture. They should stop to reflect on the unintended consequences, instead of clamoring for intervention--without even understanding what processes they're disturbing.[/quote]
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baron Von PWN and 5 guests

cron
Login