Minimum Wage

[PLAYER57832]

A person making minimum wage in the US can live at a standard far higher than 90% of the world's people.

I don't think slums of Calcutta should be our measure of "decent". American can do better, far better.

Even so, you are not as correct as you might believe. People making not a big wage in many countries can still provide a decent house, food and, in many cases, even medical care and education, for their families. The big issues is that medical care and decent education are often just not available in some of those places.

[bedub1]

Well, not at all, but even if that were true, how much better do their bosses live?

God, this is maddening.

This is not about how much your fucking boss makes. This is about you, and every other worker in this country, working for a wage they feel is compensatory for the work that they perform. If you think you should make more, go look for another job, and quit your current one. It's that fucking simple. Either you are correct, and you will find a job that pays you what you believe to be the correct amount, or you are wrong, and potential employers will not find the value in you that you see in yourself.

If Joe Bob decides he should make 9 bucks an hour because he quit jerking off in the mayonnaise at the burger joint he works at, he should be able to find out for himself. The government should not have to intervene to force the burger joint to pay Joe Bob $9 an hour.

Everybody that hates business owners and managers etc should quit their bitching and go start their own business. Then you will understand what taxes are, understand what it means to hire people, to have to lay people off, how the minimum wage affects your ability to sell your products and run your business. Then you can hate yourself for being such an evil "Business Owner".

And some people on here will never agree, because they believe in Socialism. They believe everybody has the RIGHT to a house, a car, food, clothing etc etc etc etc healthcare etc etc etc. They don't realize that you need to EARN the things that you receive. They have the attitude if you can't afford it, it should be given to you.

[bedub1]

You're becoming more of a fucking idiot each post, Bebub.

Based on which post of his? The one about raising minimum wage to $25/hr?

If so, then you are the idiot. You don't have to take the idea to $25/hr to illustrate bedub's point.

Minimum wage is $7.25. Some on here argue it should be higher. Is $7.50 good? No? How about $8? No? How about $9.35? What is the right number? And who posesses the wisdom to determine that number?

Nice personal attack. No wonder you are on my ignore list. Care to attack my statements instead of childishly attacking me personally?

[PLAYER57832]

Well, not at all, but even if that were true, how much better do their bosses live?

God, this is maddening.

This is not about how much your fucking boss makes.

Actually, it very much is. You argue that because someone managed to pull the money together, or, in may cases, was lucky enough to inherit the money to buy a company, that means they get to make whatever they like and the rest of the world either takes it or leaves it.

We argue that working is of value, has an inherent value and not recognizing that is exploitation.
I further argue that owning the company doesn't give you the right to demand that we either put up with homeless people or provide them with housing out of our tax dollars, becuase you don't feel they are worth enough to afford a house.

This is about you, and every other worker in this country, working for a wage they feel is compensatory for the work that they perform. If you think you should make more, go look for another job, and quit your current one. It's that fucking simple. Either you are correct, and you will find a job that pays you what you believe to be the correct amount, or you are wrong, and potential employers will not find the value in you that you see in yourself

.
No, because there are never enough jobs for people and becuase people really would rather work, even at menial jobs, than take welfare. Even so, many work AND wind up taking "welfare". Becuase too many employers know they can get away with it. A minimum wage is about the only way to ensure that employers don't get away with that.

If Joe Bob decides he should make 9 bucks an hour because he quit jerking off in the mayonnaise at the burger joint he works at, he should be able to find out for himself. The government should not have to intervene to force the burger joint to pay Joe Bob $9 an hour.

Typical argument which shows how unrealisitic your view is.
A. most workers DO NOT "jerk off". Those who do don't deserve minimum wage, they deserve to be FIRED. Most workers work long and hard. They do up until they get so burned out from being exploited by idiot managers that they just don't care any more.

B. Minimum wage is well below $9.00. Furthermore, many who work in burger joints fall under the exceptions.. hiring young trainees who also don't have to support themselves fully.

[Trephining]

PLAYER...you keep pointing to how low-wage workers need gov't handouts to reach a certain standard of living. Have you ever contemplated that exactly those handouts subsidize the price of that standard of living, and following along...every time a price is subsidized, the price goes up.

[PLAYER57832]

You're becoming more of a fucking idiot each post, Bebub.

Based on which post of his? The one about raising minimum wage to $25/hr?

If so, then you are the idiot. You don't have to take the idea to $25/hr to illustrate bedub's point.

Minimum wage is $7.25. Some on here argue it should be higher. Is $7.50 good? No? How about $8? No? How about $9.35? What is the right number? And who posesses the wisdom to determine that number?

Nice personal attack. No wonder you are on my ignore list. Care to attack my statements instead of childishly attacking me personally?

Yes.
Talking about $25 as if it had anything to do with minimum wage is ridiculous, unless you truly believe it takes $25 and hour to live. Maybe there are places where that is true, in which case.. sure. However, I suspect that if that is true, then the enterprising employer will find ways to provide that living in a more cost-effective manner. Many farmers don't pay much, but do provide housing and extra food, for example.

You ignore the purpose of a minimum wage and ignore the workd "minimum". The minimum wage is the base level that will allow someone to survive in our country, without living on the street, starving or getting unduly sick. It is the wage needed to do that without government help. You are among the first to decry "entitlements". Well, guess what someone who works is entitled to a decent wage. Anything else is exploitation and no, owning a company does not give you automatic right to pay whatever you wish, any more than it gives you the right to demand sexual favors or abuse your employees in other ways. I don't really care how low the wage, how poor the condition, you will always find workers desperate enough to take those jobs. Laws are needed to ensure that exploitation doesn't happen. It is true because some employers think its just fine to ask workers to work in dangerous conditions without safeties in place. It is true because too many people think the minimum wage is a stupid idea.

And, the further irony is, as I said above, most small businesses do pay above minimum. But, the people who don't drive up the costs for everyone in taking our tax dollars. AND, they keep prices for goods artificially low.

[72o]

Becuase its wrong, and history shows it.
Remember the turn of the century, the roaring 20's.... there was very good reason why unions arose, why we have mandated safety regulations, etc.

Wanting to make a profit doesn't make you greedy. Being greedy does not even necessarily make you "evil" (as some like to throw out), but there are just too many who fill both.. and the weatlhier someone is, the more removed they often become from what things are truly like for average workers.

The is why that new show here, where the bosses pretend to be just another worker, is so popular. And, if you watch it, you will begin to see a big part of what I mean. You see case after case of managers saying "hey, I just did not know..." Well, workers know. But workers have to feed their families.

Unions arose in large part because of the massive industrialization that was taking place during that time. A few little inventions around the end of the nineteenth century may have had something to do with that. These manufacturing and industrial jobs were unsafe and dangerous. That's why the safety regulations. Safety regulations are fine, great. Keep em safe, or as safe as you can. Obviously certain jobs will have inherent danger.

Fixing wages is something totally different. Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit. The only way that employers would be able to pay "unfair" wages would be if there were a greater supply of labor than demand for it. If that were the case (as is the case today), mandating that employers pay more than they have to reduces the likelihood that their companies will grow and subsequently increase the demand for labor. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Actually, it does. Becuase its not just that I don't happen to think $20,000 is a decent living, its that anyone paid that low, particularly with kids, cannot rent an apartment, so they have to get a government subsidy. They cannot buy food (and many are not allowed to or just cannot grow it for may reasons), and cannot provide reasonable health care.

Like I said above, when you make comments like that, you are saying there is no problem with people working 40 hours and living on the street. Well, most of us do see a problem with that. Unless that employer is also living on the street, it is just plain exploitation.

Everyone needs to be accountable for themselves. If you can only produce results that are worth $20K a year to your employer, you probably shouldn't be having kids until you are better able to support yourself. You can absolutely afford a place to live and put food on your own table. I have done it. I didn't live in a nice home with a yard and a brand new car and a bunch of kids. I lived in a single wide trailer with no air conditioning and drove a moped to work. Why? Because that's all I could afford. I never did feel entitled to that nice home, because I was not yet able to command the earning power to have that. YET being the operative word there.

There is a reason why I work 40 hours a week today and make more than others who work 40 hours a week. It's not because I'm exploiting others. It's because my employer values me more.

The problem you have is that you don't think people should be accountable, you think everyone should have access to exactly the same benefits across the board, regardless of skill level, aptitude, effort, etc. That's called COMMUNISM.

[bedub1]

The owner of a small farm was being investigated for allegedly not paying his workers proper wages.

"I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them," demanded the interviewing agent.

"Well," replied the farmer, "there's my farmhand, who has been with me for three years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board. The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $150 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the half-wit who works about 18 hours every day and does 90 percent of all the work around here. He makes about $10 a week and pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally."

"That's the guy I want to talk to, the half-wit," said the agent.

The farmer replied, "That would be me."

[spurgistan]

The owner of a small farm was being investigated for allegedly not paying his workers proper wages.

"I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them," demanded the interviewing agent.

"Well," replied the farmer, "there's my farmhand, who has been with me for three years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board. The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $150 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the half-wit who works about 18 hours every day and does 90 percent of all the work around here. He makes about $10 a week and pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally."

"That's the guy I want to talk to, the half-wit," said the agent.

The farmer replied, "That would be me."

Citation?

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER...you keep pointing to how low-wage workers need gov't handouts to reach a certain standard of living. Have you ever contemplated that exactly those handouts subsidize the price of that standard of living, and following along...every time a price is subsidized, the price goes up.

Only to a small point.
In truth most employers already pay above minimum wage. The ones who don't largely are ones who already are known as exploiters. They are poorly managed companies or companies with sections that are poorly managed (Walmart, for example, can be a good place to work at certain levels and in certain positions... but not at the bottom). This is the irony, it is not really the good companies, it is the bad ones that are being supported the most.

The other part to this is attitude. And that gets to a lot of what I am talking about. The minimum is just that... a bare minimum. Anything else can, and probably should be based on productivity and so forth. Employers look at set wage classifications, though because really assessing productivity is complicated and just plain hard for a lot of "political" reasons. In truth, why is it that someone sitting in a clean office, making decisions, phone calls is "worth" so much more than someone who works all day long running a machine well or fixing machines? In a certain way it doesn't make sense at all, it is just something we accept as reasonable. We accept it, mostly, because the people in the desks are the ones making those decisions.

Even so, while you can certainly justify a gap between higher ups and the janitors, right now that gap is extraordinarily high. So, the REAL truth is that employers are NOT basing wages on productivity or profit. They are basing wages on an artificial system of entitlement that is far more engrained than government "entitlement programs". I mean, most of us can understand, even if not like, that some people need help putting food on the table. The "justification" fro paying exhorbitant salaries to people just because they majored in "business" and sit in an office, is pretty loose when you look at the real facts and balance sheets.

however, too few are required to do so. This is because so much is based, not on main street, not on factories or even farms, but on what Wallstreet "produces" and "sells". Theoretically, those things should be based on Mainstreet. However, they are not.

Also, I specifically said "enough to provide housing, etc." rather than a set dollar amount. In some cases, it can be more cost effective to simply provide housing, for example. Care has to be taken that such things are not exploitive, too. However, the idea of a company town is actually decent. It works well in some situations.

[Timminz]

Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit.

You're seriously fucking retarded, aren't you.

"I'm not making enough money. Maybe I should quit my job."

[bedub1]

You're becoming more of a fucking idiot each post, Bebub.

Based on which post of his? The one about raising minimum wage to $25/hr?

If so, then you are the idiot. You don't have to take the idea to $25/hr to illustrate bedub's point.

Minimum wage is $7.25. Some on here argue it should be higher. Is $7.50 good? No? How about $8? No? How about $9.35? What is the right number? And who posesses the wisdom to determine that number?

Nice personal attack. No wonder you are on my ignore list. Care to attack my statements instead of childishly attacking me personally?

Yes.
Talking about $25 as if it had anything to do with minimum wage is ridiculous, unless you truly believe it takes $25 and hour to live. Maybe there are places where that is true, in which case.. sure. However, I suspect that if that is true, then the enterprising employer will find ways to provide that living in a more cost-effective manner. Many farmers don't pay much, but do provide housing and extra food, for example.

You ignore the purpose of a minimum wage and ignore the workd "minimum". The minimum wage is the base level that will allow someone to survive in our country, without living on the street, starving or getting unduly sick. It is the wage needed to do that without government help. You are among the first to decry "entitlements". Well, guess what someone who works is entitled to a decent wage. Anything else is exploitation and no, owning a company does not give you automatic right to pay whatever you wish, any more than it gives you the right to demand sexual favors or abuse your employees in other ways. I don't really care how low the wage, how poor the condition, you will always find workers desperate enough to take those jobs. Laws are needed to ensure that exploitation doesn't happen. It is true because some employers think its just fine to ask workers to work in dangerous conditions without safeties in place. It is true because too many people think the minimum wage is a stupid idea.

And, the further irony is, as I said above, most small businesses do pay above minimum. But, the people who don't drive up the costs for everyone in taking our tax dollars. AND, they keep prices for goods artificially low.

You don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as a "minimum wage" as you have defined it above. It will vary. Based upon how the person lives, how old they are, how many people they need to support etc. The free market is how this value is found. It's not found by artificially inflating something.

The minimum wage for a 16 year old, living with his parents, without ANY expensive of his own, could be about $1/hr. The minimum wage for an 18 year old, that never graduated high school, and lives by herself must be higher. If she has a roommate, it can be lower. If she has 4 roommates, it can be much lower. If she wants more money, she should go back to high school. Then college. The minimum wage for a 35 year old, with a wife, and 15 kids, must be extremely high. Probably higher than $25/hr. Do you think that 35 year old should get lots of money? Do you think his wife should go get a job? Do you think they shouldn't have had 15 kids? Do you still think they deserve a minimum wage that " will allow someone to survive in our country, without living on the street, starving or getting unduly sick. It is the wage needed to do that without government help."? Shouldn't the minimum wage vary then based upon each persons circumstances? What if that minimum wage for this fictisious family is $50/hour. Do you think we should then government mandate it to ensure nobody is slipping through the cracks?

I think where we disagree stems from the fact that you seem to believe people are entitled to things. A sense of entitlement. Whereas I think people should earn things.

[thegreekdog]

Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit.

You're seriously fucking retarded, aren't you.

"I'm not making enough money. Maybe I should quit my job."

Yeah, well, that happens a lot, don't you think? I mean, like all the time. Like right now there are probably a thousand people just in Philadelphia who are looking for new jobs that pay more. Maybe the "you're seriously fucking retarded" comment is a little overboard.

In other news, I think the angst here is because of misunderstandings. Some people (me) are arguing not about minimum wage, but about wages generally. Other people are arguing specifically about minimum wages. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there aren't a whole lot of people over the age of 18 making minimum wage, so that might be a moot point. Someone else made the excellent point that most businesses paying minimum wage are small businesses where the owners aren't making a billion dollars a year.

[72o]

Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit.

You're seriously fucking retarded, aren't you.

"I'm not making enough money. Maybe I should quit my job."

I guess so. I must be the most retarded motherfucker on the planet, because this whole "economics" thing seems pretty fucking simple to me.

Let's try an example.

I am a mean, zillionaire burger joint owner. I hire people at 5 cents an hour. I don't give a shit how much experience they have, or how good they are at flipping burgers. 5 cents. You don't like it? Tough. I have a yacht payment to make.

Player is the nice, friendly burger joint owner. She doesn't make any money, because she gives all of the profit to the employees evenly. She sleeps in the back on the potato sacks.

You are a master burger flipper who currently works for me. You're not going to consider trying to find another job?

[PLAYER57832]

Becuase its wrong, and history shows it.
Remember the turn of the century, the roaring 20's.... there was very good reason why unions arose, why we have mandated safety regulations, etc.

Wanting to make a profit doesn't make you greedy. Being greedy does not even necessarily make you "evil" (as some like to throw out), but there are just too many who fill both.. and the weatlhier someone is, the more removed they often become from what things are truly like for average workers.

The is why that new show here, where the bosses pretend to be just another worker, is so popular. And, if you watch it, you will begin to see a big part of what I mean. You see case after case of managers saying "hey, I just did not know..." Well, workers know. But workers have to feed their families.

Unions arose in large part because of the massive industrialization that was taking place during that time. A few little inventions around the end of the nineteenth century may have had something to do with that. These manufacturing and industrial jobs were unsafe and dangerous. That's why the safety regulations. Safety regulations are fine, great. Keep em safe, or as safe as you can. Obviously certain jobs will have inherent danger.

Fixing wages is something totally different. Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit. The only way that employers would be able to pay "unfair" wages would be if there were a greater supply of labor than demand for it. If that were the case (as is the case today), mandating that employers pay more than they have to reduces the likelihood that their companies will grow and subsequently increase the demand for labor. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

Safety was only part of it. You also had people thinking that maybe its not OK for Rockafeller and his ilk to drive "golden carriages" while thier children starved, literally.

Actually, it does. Becuase its not just that I don't happen to think $20,000 is a decent living, its that anyone paid that low, particularly with kids, cannot rent an apartment, so they have to get a government subsidy. They cannot buy food (and many are not allowed to or just cannot grow it for may reasons), and cannot provide reasonable health care.

Like I said above, when you make comments like that, you are saying there is no problem with people working 40 hours and living on the street. Well, most of us do see a problem with that. Unless that employer is also living on the street, it is just plain exploitation.

Everyone needs to be accountable for themselves. If you can only produce results that are worth $20K a year to your employer, you probably shouldn't be having kids until you are better able to support yourself. [/quote]
Except I don't know anyone who doesn't work enough to earn $20,000 for their employer. I DO know a good many employers who think their employees are not worth much. I also know a good many employers who will go on and on about how "lazy" and "inefficient" their workers are.

You can absolutely afford a place to live and put food on your own table. I have done it. I didn't live in a nice home with a yard and a brand new car and a bunch of kids. I lived in a single wide trailer with no air conditioning and drove a moped to work. Why? Because that's all I could afford. I never did feel entitled to that nice home, because I was not yet able to command the earning power to have that. YET being the operative word there.

Oh, please. Don't even try to lecture me on living economically!
That is exactly the kind of arrogance to which I referred. You assume that this is about workers who are lazy, don't know how to budget, etc.

The reality is that I live in a small town, with a depressed economy. Even so, you cannot get a safe house with 2 bedrooms for under $350 a month, PLUS utilities. Emphasize that "safe" part. Three of the major rental property owners are, effectively slumlords. My husband went to several houses last winter for carbon monoxide poisoning. In each case, the renters had complained about problems to the landlord. In one case, the Fire Dept had complained.

Go to New York, and it is hard to find an efficiency (out west they are called "studios") for under $600 and that won't be in a great neighborhood.

There is a reason why I work 40 hours a week today and make more than others who work 40 hours a week. It's not because I'm exploiting others. It's because my employer values me more.

good for you. My husband worked well over 40 hours a week. He was able to fix things that other maintenance people could not, saving the company several hundred dollars as a result. Unlike previous hires, if he had any down time, he would go out and find something to do. If they were short, he would help out AND do his regular job. Sometimes he might have to put off a less necessary maintenance job so he could pack boxes, but he would do it, without complaint becuase he knew that if those boxes don't go out, the company would not make a sale. Others wouldn't, but he would. He worked overtime for which he has still not been compensated.

And, he was laid off, while the lower-wage employees got to keep theirs.

The problem you have is that you don't think people should be accountable, you think everyone should have access to exactly the same benefits across the board, regardless of skill level, aptitude, effort, etc.

No, the problem is that you think employers and managers ARE accountable, ARE paid based on skill and that most pay employees in that way. I don't. Certainly not when it comes to minimum wage employers!

That's called COMMUNISM.

No, its actually called effective management, which is much more a part of capitolism than your system.
What we have now is a lot of exploitation.. and that is why our economy is still sliding, depsite some signs of recovery.

[Timminz]

Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit.

You're seriously fucking retarded, aren't you.

"I'm not making enough money. Maybe I should quit my job."

Yeah, well, that happens a lot, don't you think? I mean, like all the time. Like right now there are probably a thousand people just in Philadelphia who are looking for new jobs that pay more. Maybe the "you're seriously fucking retarded" comment is a little overboard.

Perhaps a little overboard in response to just that comment, but when someone spouts off with all the apparent insight into the real world of a 16 year-old telling me daddy's opinions, I start to assume they've got zero substance of their own, but I digress.

My point is that, especially today, there simply aren't that many jobs available that anybody can just up and quit to go grab a better-paying one. It's not even close to as simple as, "if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit".


And really? A whole thousand people in a city the size of Philly? You really are conservative.

[bedub1]

The owner of a small farm was being investigated for allegedly not paying his workers proper wages.

"I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them," demanded the interviewing agent.

"Well," replied the farmer, "there's my farmhand, who has been with me for three years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board. The cook has been here for 18 months, and I pay her $150 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the half-wit who works about 18 hours every day and does 90 percent of all the work around here. He makes about $10 a week and pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of bourbon every Saturday night. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally."

"That's the guy I want to talk to, the half-wit," said the agent.

The farmer replied, "That would be me."

Citation?

lol....it was in the Playboy Jokes section right behind the centerfold.

But what happens if the minimum wage is raised so high that the business owner is now making half of minimum wage? Isn't he entitled to earn minimum wage too? Who is going to give him his money? What about business's that loose money and end up closing? Are those owners entitled to minimum wage for all the hours they've worked? Who's going to pay them?

[SirSebstar]

he then has a failing bussinessmodel. The same faulty model that encourages slavery.

[72o]

Except I don't know anyone who doesn't work enough to earn $20,000 for their employer. I DO know a good many employers who think their employees are not worth much. I also know a good many employers who will go on and on about how "lazy" and "inefficient" their workers are.

I know (and am related to) people who aren't worth $20K a year. They are lazy and inefficient. If they weren't, they would be able to command a better salary. Instead they lay out of work and smoke pot all day.

Oh, please. Don't even try to lecture me on living economically!
That is exactly the kind of arrogance to which I referred. You assume that this is about workers who are lazy, don't know how to budget, etc.

The reality is that I live in a small town, with a depressed economy. Even so, you cannot get a safe house with 2 bedrooms for under $350 a month, PLUS utilities. Emphasize that "safe" part. Three of the major rental property owners are, effectively slumlords. My husband went to several houses last winter for carbon monoxide poisoning. In each case, the renters had complained about problems to the landlord. In one case, the Fire Dept had complained.

Go to New York, and it is hard to find an efficiency (out west they are called "studios") for under $600 and that won't be in a great neighborhood.

I'm not lecturing on living cheaply, I'm pointing out that there are certain things that are not rights, but privileges, that come with being successful. Not everyone is entitled to a 2000 square foot house with 2 cars in the garage and 2.5 kids. They need to earn that.

You are correct, some cheaper places are less hospitable. Boo fuckin hoo. All the more reason to better yourself and drive up your own standard of living. Get better at your job so you can command a better wage.

Also correct, some places are more expensive than others. I'm not terribly certain why that matters, since even the low-paying jobs in those areas pay much more than minimum wage because of the inflated standard of living in those areas.

good for you. My husband worked well over 40 hours a week. He was able to fix things that other maintenance people could not, saving the company several hundred dollars as a result. Unlike previous hires, if he had any down time, he would go out and find something to do. If they were short, he would help out AND do his regular job. Sometimes he might have to put off a less necessary maintenance job so he could pack boxes, but he would do it, without complaint becuase he knew that if those boxes don't go out, the company would not make a sale. Others wouldn't, but he would. He worked overtime for which he has still not been compensated.

And, he was laid off, while the lower-wage employees got to keep theirs.

Then he should be able to market himself pretty well to other property management companies because of all the experience and value-added work he performs. As an employer I understand that there is a massive difference between employees who have a career, and those who have a job. Kudos to him for understanding that as well.

No, the problem is that you think employers and managers ARE accountable, ARE paid based on skill and that most pay employees in that way. I don't. Certainly not when it comes to minimum wage employers!

If they're not, it's the employee's fault for accepting lower wages than they are worth.

That's called COMMUNISM.

No, its actually called effective management, which is much more a part of capitolism than your system.
What we have now is a lot of exploitation.. and that is why our economy is still sliding, depsite some signs of recovery.

What I said was: "...you think everyone should have access to exactly the same benefits across the board, regardless of skill level, aptitude, effort, etc." That is not effective management. If you had ever worked in a situation where an inferior colleague was rewarded the same as you, regardless of effort, you would realize that that's more ineffective than rewarding neither employee.

Capitalism is the opposite of that.

[tzor]

God, this is maddening.

This is not about how much your fucking boss makes. This is about you, and every other worker in this country, working for a wage they feel is compensatory for the work that they perform. If you think you should make more, go look for another job, and quit your current one. It's that fucking simple. Either you are correct, and you will find a job that pays you what you believe to be the correct amount, or you are wrong, and potential employers will not find the value in you that you see in yourself.

It’s not exactly that easy. It should be, but progressive liberals (and well meaning moderates) get in the way.

The first roadblock is the notion that in order to “look” for another job you really have to so somewhere else. It could be the next town or the next county or even the next state. The ability to have a moveable workforce, able to move to where the jobs are, was one of the biggest assets of the United States economy. This asset was effectively killed by “home ownership,” especially when workers are now trapped to under water houses and unable to relocate to a better location with a better job.

The second roadblock is employee tied healthcare. Leaving one job to find another requires you to leave the nest of the employer’s healthcare umbrella. (COBRA is, for all practical purposes, a joke.) Then getting employment again risks the problems of starting anew with a new employer healthcare umbrella (the worst case used to be you might not get one, now it is you wind up in the high risk pool … I think that is the one with the sharks). This can also cause some hesitancy in people in leaving their current job to look for another.

[b.k. barunt]

But what happens if the minimum wage is raised so high that the business owner is now making half of minimum wage? Isn't he entitled to earn minimum wage too? Who is going to give him his money? What about business's that loose money and end up closing? Are those owners entitled to minimum wage for all the hours they've worked? Who's going to pay them?

Stoopit question of the year award.


Honibaz

[Night Strike]

I stopped getting raises at work because the rise in minimum wage eclipsed what I was getting paid, so although I had done exceptional work for nearly 2 years, I was forced to get paid the same amount as a starting employee. It's a continuous circle that the public use to harm the economy: people raise minimum wage, prices have to go up to pay those wages, people claim wages have to go up more to pay for those prices. It's a stupid cycle that kills our economy.

Your employer taking advantage of you and your willingness to keep working there and not go out and as YOU said, improve yourself to get a higher wage, is not to be blamed on a rise in the minimum wage. Too many employers think that workers are superfolous. Too many employers fail to understand that a poor manager is the number one factor in poor performance and productivity, not "lazy workers". Lazy workers absolutely exist, but a good manager can motivate the overwhelming majority. A poor manager can only criticize everyone around and sees no problem in cutting wages. Sure, they may send out nice notices geared to get a their employees to go out and vote in ways that will benefit the employer, not themselves.

And you COMPLETELY missed the point of my statement. I didn't get a raise because of a poor manager; I didn't get a raise because the rising minimum wage was considered my raise! I was unable to get a performance raise because minimum wage rose for everybody. My hours also declined as minimum wage went up.

Now to read the rest of the 3 new pages.

[72o]

While it is natural to have sympathy for our fellow citizens who work at low-wage jobs and still live in poverty, we should remember that our notion of poverty is relative. Using U.S. Census data, Heritage Foundation scholars examined the living standards of poor Americans and found that the average poor American has a car, air conditioning, at least one color television along with cable or satellite TV, a home that is in decent condition and enough food in the refrigerator.[6] Poverty in America, especially for those who do not work, is less a matter of material deprivation than of emotional and spiritual loss, the pervading worry that comes from knowing that one is dependent on the arcane determinations of state and federal bureaucrats, and the loss of self esteem that comes from knowing that one is not self-sufficient.

But for the working poor, this type of poverty is largely abolished. They are able to face the future with optimism and confidence, however modest their income, precisely because it is earned. They know they are contributing to the national economy and have taken control over own lives.

Increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve the conditions of poor Americans. Relatively few of those workers who receive wages at or near the minimum are members of poor families. For those poor who are working, wage increases are substantial and come quickly as they accumulate job experience. Increasing the minimum wage will, however, eliminate entry-level jobs for unskilled workers, making it more difficult for those who want to work to find jobs.

ref. The Economic Effects of the Minimum Wage - Paul Kersey, Heritage Foundation Fellow

[Night Strike]

Player, you keep talking about the plight of minimum wage, yet you have never provided statistics about how many people are actually at minimum wage. Worse yet, you haven't mentioned how many of these are high school or college students or are actually the 2nd income in the family just to make a few extra bucks. The amount of people trying to live off minimum wage is grossly overestimated simply to raise the minimum wage.

[Trephining]

Again, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, if people weren't paid a fair wage, they would quit.

You're seriously fucking retarded, aren't you.

"I'm not making enough money. Maybe I should quit my job."

This would have been a great opportunity for you to make a point of your own Timminz. Next time, summon your thinking cap, and explain a point. Until then, you might keep your "seriously f***ing retarded" comments for the man in the mirror.

What 72o is saying is exactly the way it works. My woman graduated school and got a job making $X/year. She wasn't satisfied with that, so she quit the job, went to graduate school and worked a part time job making 0.6 * X per year. Then she finished her degree and found a job paying 1.71*X per year. She later found a job making 2.21*X per year.

Every time, she wasn't satisfied with what she was earning, so she found a better one and quit the current job. It is that simple.