What *SHOULD* the rich subsidize the poor for?

[blankslate]

They pick 1968 because it was the highest minimum wage in the history of the country.

Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Was there some sort of recession during that time period?

I also think its important to note that most people making minimum wage are not trying to live on it.

By far the largest segment (~50%) of the population making minimum wage is 16-25, single and childless. (From the BLS survey on Minimum wage) Why does a 17 year old living at home need to make a 'livable' wage? Less than 1% of the workforce actually depends on the minimum wage to live

While obviously wages have stagnated, I don't believe there is any proof that raising the minimum wage would increase the wages of anyone other than those making or almost making minimum wage.

there is also no evidence that you have cited that raising the minimum wage won't have a positive effect on anyone else's wages.

A 17 year old who isn't looking for a full time job would still benefit from an increased minimum wage if he is starting to save even if he doesn't depend on it for a living. If it is just spending money then it would still benefit the economy more as the proverbial 17 year old would buy a bit more.

According to this http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm
the percentage of the workforce on the minimum wage is closer to 5%
As for the only 1% of workers depending on a minimum wage. It would be helpful for this discussion if I could see the link to the information you have.

Additionally it has been noted in other threads in which the subject of jobs comes up that many people looking for full time work have to settle for part time work and part time workers are more likely to be paid the the minimum wage.

Also Neither of you address this part of my post.

Also according to author Hedrick Smith who wrote Who Stole the American Dream? from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s the average productivity of workers in the middle class almost doubled.
Likewise the wages almost doubled in the same period of time.

From mid 1973 to the year 2011 the productivity of the workers in the middle class increased by 50% while wages increased by 10%

Here is a link to an interview with the author https://rapidshare.com/files/2857919471/Who.Stole.the.American.Dream.mp3

His statement about productivity and wages starts at about 7minutes and 30seconds into the sound file.

What say you both about that?

 

[nehalem256]

Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Was there some sort of recession during that time period?

The problem is concluding that highest minimum wage in history is correct based on nothing more than that it was the highest.

EDIT: If a $10 minimum wage was such a good idea why did it rarely ever afterward even go about $8?

 

[nehalem256]

A liveable wage will also differ by employer and location.

A mom and pop corner store will not have the cash reserves as say apple, exxon, walmart,,,,.

Rent in rural Texas will not be the same as say LA.

A livable wage will obviously differ based on location. No argument there.

A livable wage does not vary based on employer. Just because you work at a mom and pop store instead of walmart does not mean you need to eat less.

And you failed to address my point. A livable wage will differ based on a person's family situation. Are you suggest we pay people unequal wages for equal work?

 

[Texashiker]

And you failed to address my point. A livable wage will differ based on a person's family situation. Are you suggest we pay people unequal wages for equal work?

Yes, if a company can afford it, they should pay unequal wages, because that is how you retain employees.

A buddy of mine works at a refinery in southeast Texas. He is a basically a helper, who also makes around $20 an hour.

The company he works for is Dupont.

So yes, there is an advantage to paying employees you want to keep a high wage.

How can Dupont pay their employees a good wage, but walmart pays their employees barely above minimum wage.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, if a company can afford it, they should pay unequal wages, because that is how you retain employees.

So you do not think that 2 people doing the same job should be paid the same?

A buddy of mine works at a refinery in southeast Texas. He is a basically a helper, who also makes around $20 an hour.

The company he works for is Dupont.

So yes, there is an advantage to paying employees you want to keep a high wage.

How can Dupont pay their employees a good wage, but walmart pays their employees barely above minimum wage.

Because Walmart operates on volume and thin profit margins. And likely each employee generates less profit.

Why don't the people at walmart go work for Dupont?

 

[blankslate]

The problem is concluding that highest minimum wage in history is correct based on nothing more than that it was the highest. EDIT: If a $10 minimum wage was such a good idea why did it rarely ever afterward even go about $8?

Well if you oppose a federal minimum wage on principle then it's interesting to note that there have been proposals to raise the minimum wage beyond $8 in at least one state.

http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2012/07/24/story-onn-mininum-wage.html

Additionally as for the why it hasn't gone beyond this $8 as there are people who advocate an increase to minimum wage there are definitely people or organizations who would argue against it.

like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and many Republicans which was mentioned in the bloomberg article which I linked to in my first post for this thread.

 

[momeNt]

Yes, if a company can afford it, they should pay unequal wages, because that is how you retain employees.

A buddy of mine works at a refinery in southeast Texas. He is a basically a helper, who also makes around $20 an hour.

The company he works for is Dupont.

So yes, there is an advantage to paying employees you want to keep a high wage.

How can Dupont pay their employees a good wage, but walmart pays their employees barely above minimum wage.

Because walmart employees accept it. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Texashiker]

Why don't the people at walmart go work for Dupont?

Probably because most of them are not qualified, or do not want to work in dangerous environments.

There is a certain level of danger in a refinery. At any given second something could blow up.

So you do not think that 2 people doing the same job should be paid the same?

When I was 17 years old I was working at a grocery store as a bagger.

The next town over the grocery store had a union, and their baggers made 3X what I made.

So yea, I think its fair.

 

[blankslate]

Because walmart employees accept it. It really is as simple as that.

Perhaps, or maybe they would speak out more if Walmart didn't "silence" their employees.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...almart-employees-wal-mart-stores-dan-fogleman

HALLANDALE BEACH — About 75 South Florida Walmart employees on Thursday joined the hundreds nationwide that have staged protests outside Walmart stores and corporate headquarters over the past few days.

The South Florida protesters, like their counterparts in California, Arkansas and elsewhere, were protesting what they see as Wal-Mart's policy of "silencing" its employees when they speak up about issues like low wages, not-quite-full-time workweeks and erratic scheduling, said Christopher Heslop, an overnight stocker of two years at a Miami Gardens Walmart.

At least a policy of "silencing" their employees is what some Walmart employees see it as.

 

[blackangst1]

You are trying to use a blanket statement.

If a company can afford to pay its employees well, why shouldn't said company be required to?

Apple makes a cool billion in profit, but yet a record number of people are on welfare.

Nobody sees an issue with that?

Or roads are falling apart, but foxxconn in china is hiring tens of thousands of employees.

No, because clearly Apple is not a gas and oil company. :biggrin:

 

[momeNt]

Probably because most of them are not qualified, or do not want to work in dangerous environments.

There is a certain level of danger in a refinery. At any given second something could blow up.




When I was 17 years old I was working at a grocery store as a bagger.

The next town over the grocery store had a union, and their baggers made 3X what I made.

So you basically answered your own questions.

Artificial labor supply manipulation and contractual collective bargaining agreements usually drawn up and enforced with government breathing down your neck is one way to raise wages. Freedom to not be signatory to unions would unravel that 3x wage differential pretty fast, but that is only just now happening in a few states.

Also the nature of the work affects the market clearing price at which labor is willing to work.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yes, if a company can afford it, they should pay unequal wages, because that is how you retain employees.

A buddy of mine works at a refinery in southeast Texas. He is a basically a helper, who also makes around $20 an hour.

The company he works for is Dupont.

So yes, there is an advantage to paying employees you want to keep a high wage.

How can Dupont pay their employees a good wage, but walmart pays their employees barely above minimum wage.

Wow, I didn't know that working in Walmart was as dangerous and required real physical labor like working in a refinery does. Isn't your buddy also a member of a union?

 

[Texashiker]

Also the nature of the work affects the market clearing price at which labor is willing to work.

Of course the nature of the work is a factor.

I know people who work on offshore drilling rigs and make as much as a doctor. But then again those people are away from their families 2 - 3 weeks at a time, the work is dangerous, but the pay is good. One guy I know, worked off shore for like 4 months straight, came home and paid his house off.

But then again, how many people died when the deep water horizon blew up?

Isn't your buddy also a member of a union?

Should be OCAW union, or something like that, dont feel like using google right now.

 

[nehalem256]

Well if you oppose a federal minimum wage on principle then it's interesting to note that there have been proposals to raise the minimum wage beyond $8 in at least one state.

http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2012/07/24/story-onn-mininum-wage.html

Additionally as for the why it hasn't gone beyond this $8 as there are people who advocate an increase to minimum wage there are definitely people or organizations who would argue against it.

like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Restaurant Association and many Republicans which was mentioned in the bloomberg article which I linked to in my first post for this thread.

I would propose basing minimum wage off

125% federal poverty line for a single person ($11,170) / (35hr/week * 50 week)

= $7.98

Call it $8/hr and the index it for inflation. So the businesses can adjust properly for future small increase per year.

 

[nehalem256]

Probably because most of them are not qualified, or do not want to work in dangerous environments.

There is a certain level of danger in a refinery. At any given second something could blow up.

So people with skills who are willing to work hard make more money.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!

 

[Texashiker]

So people with skills who are willing to work hard make more money.

HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN!!!!!!

So how does society help people that are at an economic disadvantage?

My step-daughter started cosmetology school yesterday. A grant is paying for her school. Hopefully in 9 months she will finish school and start to work.

But who subsidized that grant? Was it apple, exxon, ibm,,, or the working middle class tax payers?

If apple is going to keep its manufacturing offshore, then why not help subsidize education to the needy?

 

[Yreka]

And in that case, i say the rich should substidize mandatory birth control for those who dont own homes!

As a landlord, I can assure you my tenants do not "own homes" yet DO pay property taxes. (as do almost all other renters, unless the property owner is very generous or bad at math )

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Of course the nature of the work is a factor.

This is why most unskilled workers in retail make minimum wage and slightly above.

Should be OCAW union, or something like that, dont feel like using google right now.

The junior mechanics that work for me in the shop start at $20/hr but have to show they mechanical abilities before they're hired. We're a non-union shop so they take home more than their union counterparts and their benefits are very comparable to new hires in the refineries.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So how does society help people that are at an economic disadvantage?

My step-daughter started cosmetology school yesterday. A grant is paying for her school. Hopefully in 9 months she will finish school and start to work.

But who subsidized that grant? Was it apple, exxon, ibm,,, or the working middle class tax payers?

If apple is going to keep its manufacturing offshore, then why not help subsidize education to the needy?

I though her highly skilled Jack in the Box burgerflipper boyfriend was supporting her.

 

[blankslate]

I would propose basing minimum wage off 125% federal poverty line for a single person ($11,170) / (35hr/week * 50 week) = $7.98

Call it $8/hr and the index it for inflation.

So the businesses can adjust properly for future small increase per year.

Interesting.
here is a link http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

I'd split the difference between the highest wage 1968 indexed for inflation $10.50 and your proposal $8.00 for $9.00 to $9.25.

Then take that ~$9.00 figure and keep it indexed for inflation.


Choosing a good wage and indexing the minimum wage to inflation is a valid and good idea even if we differ on what the starting number should be.

I can see exceptions for people who are dependents like like teenagers going for seasonal jobs. However, I would be wary about such exceptions for anyone else.

 

[Texashiker]

I though her highly skilled Jack in the Box burgerflipper boyfriend was supporting her.

Yea,,, right.

That bum of a husband has been running a bush hog clearing pipelines and high lines.

Works a couple of weeks, takes a couple of weeks off, works a couple of weeks, takes a couple of weeks off,,,,,, repeat.

Cutting hair and doing nails may not pay a lot around here, but at least its "something."

 

[momeNt]

Formula for ending welfare and poverty.

Minimum wage = (cost of housing for # of household -1) / (wage earners in household) + Food and necessary living expenses / wage earners in household.

**I use household members -1 because if you are earning minimum wage, the downfall is that is more cramped living spaces.

Wage earners in household as opposed to potential wage earners in household because if a potential wage earner isn't earning a wage then there would be a shortfall, which welfare would need to pick up. I'm eliminating welfare, so only the wage earners are factored into the floating minimum wage that is decided on households.

Considering the cost of living is inescapable, the only thing that matters is who pays for it. This is the most fair and balanced way, and eliminates unnecessary government largess.

 

[nehalem256]

Formula for ending welfare and poverty.

Minimum wage = (cost of housing for # of household -1) / (wage earners in household) + Food and necessary living expenses / wage earners in household.

**I use household members -1 because if you are earning minimum wage, the downfall is that is more cramped living spaces.

Wage earners in household as opposed to potential wage earners in household because if a potential wage earner isn't earning a wage then there would be a shortfall, which welfare would need to pick up. I'm eliminating welfare, so only the wage earners are factored into the floating minimum wage that is decided on households.

Considering the cost of living is inescapable, the only thing that matters is who pays for it. This is the most fair and balanced way, and eliminates unnecessary government largess.

So you are straight up proposing unequal pay for equal work?

 

[momeNt]

So you are straight up proposing unequal pay for equal work?

People bargain for wages based off their needs. Hence why stocking shelves in Manhattan nets you more money than stocking shelves in buttfuck Montana. So I'm not proposing a novel concept.

Like I said, costs are inescapable, it's just a matter of who pays them. low wage + government entitlements may = higher wages for higher work. So there is already equal pay for uneqeual work in the form of government benefits. Instead of robbing peter to pay paul, we are forcing peter to pay paul with the coercive arm of government. It's just this way the government never has to lay its hands on the money.

Government is already strapping young girls down to get abortions in your world, so this plan isn't much of a stretch.

 

[nehalem256]

People bargain for wages based off their needs. Hence why stocking shelves in Manhattan nets you more money than stocking shelves in buttfuck Montana. So I'm not proposing a novel concept.

Like I said, costs are inescapable, it's just a matter of who pays them. low wage + government entitlements may = higher wages for higher work. So there is already equal pay for uneqeual work in the form of government benefits. Instead of robbing peter to pay paul, we are forcing peter to pay paul with the coercive arm of government. It's just this way the government never has to lay its hands on the money.

Government is already strapping young girls down to get abortions in your world, so this plan isn't much of a stretch.

So much for equal pay for equal work huh?

Thank you for exposing liberal hypocrisy.