a liberal paradise

[Michael823]

"Raising the minimum wage will ruin the economy"--said no one making minimum wage.. ever.

What would be brilliant, IMO, is to say that GED or High School graduates receive at least $9.50 base pay. You'd rule out the teenagers working a 1st job, who would still be at around $7.50, and you'd give incentive and importance to getting a diploma by the age of 18.

Someone can argue the economics of that all-day. But I'm fairly positive that a raise like that would help to change the mentality of a lot of people. There is no 'making it' on $7 an hour.. not unless you have a horse and carriage, good soil and a trusty Farmer's Almanac.

 

[Chip]

Why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? By the rationale of those wanting to raise it to help low wage workers, that should solve everything.

 

[Michael823]

And for the sake of rational, sensible, tempered conversation.. enough with the word "liberal"! It's a non-insult, really. In fact, I'm more offended that someone finds it insulting to call someone a liberal (or conservative). As though we are all so simple minded, as to fall perfectly in sync with our political party on every issue. The word 'liberal' describes noone, except for a walking-stereotype who is placed into a box to be one. Just as a 'thug', 'Christian' or other; words meant to demean or give praise, that have no bearing in actuality.

 

[Michael823]

Why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? By the rationale of those wanting to raise it to help low wage workers, that should solve everything.

This is always the bogus response.. "well, why not give them yachts and aero-planes too?".

Honestly, it would be insulting to respond to. As though one can not see the unreasonable comparison to raising minimum wage by $2 for graduates, and raising it $92.50 "just cuz".

 

[Chip]

I agree with your first sentiment, "liberal" and "conservative" are more buzzwords than a description of ideology anymore. But my question is sincere. I didn't say anything about yachts. Just a really high wage. Why not?

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

If your labor costs more, your cost of producing good increases. This expense is passed on through price increases.

So what?

If Wal-Mart paid it's employees $12.50 an hour, it'd cost the average shopper 46¢ per trip or $12 a year. That is essentially nothing. Plus, all that extra money would just go right back into the economy, which would further bring up demand, which would help to boost the economy.

Plus, the average Wal-Mart costs tax payers $1 million dollars every year in benefits. Essentially us, the tax payers, are subsidizing their low wages.

And if McDonald's doubled minimum wage, a big mac would go up 68¢. Really not that much, not to mention you'd probably have a whole lot more people who could afford a big mac now, which would only end up helping McDonalds.

If minimum wage had been tied to inflation, it would be over $21 right now.

Now is raising minimum wage the only answer? Of course not. But this entire notion it would crash and ruin businesses is largely unfounded. Even if companies passed the costs to consumers, the rise in costs would be minimal and the gains in the overall economy would likely more than offset them.

It hurts everyone to have wages so low. Especially since wages have skyrocketed for the top, yet remained flat for the rest of us for the past 30 years, even though productivity has shot up. The system is broken. That much is undeniable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-walmart-wage-hike-would-cost-you-2013-7

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/busines...uld-rise-by-68-cents-if-minimum-wage-doubles/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html

 

[Blue Apple Herps]

I agree. I no more want the extreme right than the left. As a libertarian independent constitution believing mutt, I want as little "politician" in our lives as possible.

Agreed. It just really bothers me whenever I see these caricatures of both sides: "Liberals want 8 year olds to have gay abortions!!!!" or "Conservatives want babies to have automatic guns and bring back slavery!!!!"

They're silly and only feed into the "us vs them" mentality. I think that is what is broken with our public discourse. We no longer see "the other side" as political adversaries, but as the enemy. We would all do well to step back once in a while and remember we're Americans first and have a hell of a lot more in common than we do in differences.

 

[tsst]

So what?

If Wal-Mart paid it's employees $12.50 an hour, it'd cost the average shopper 46¢ per trip or $12 a year. That is essentially nothing. Plus, all that extra money would just go right back into the economy, which would further bring up demand, which would help to boost the economy.

Plus, the average Wal-Mart costs tax payers $1 million dollars every year in benefits. Essentially us, the tax payers, are subsidizing their low wages.

And if McDonald's doubled minimum wage, a big mac would go up 68¢. Really not that much, not to mention you'd probably have a whole lot more people who could afford a big mac now, which would only end up helping McDonalds.

If minimum wage had been tied to inflation, it would be over $21 right now.

Now is raising minimum wage the only answer? Of course not. But this entire notion it would crash and ruin businesses is largely unfounded. Even if companies passed the costs to consumers, the rise in costs would be minimal and the gains in the overall economy would likely more than offset them.

It hurts everyone to have wages so low. Especially since wages have skyrocketed for the top, yet remained flat for the rest of us for the past 30 years, even though productivity has shot up. The system is broken. That much is undeniable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-walmart-wage-hike-would-cost-you-2013-7

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/busines...uld-rise-by-68-cents-if-minimum-wage-doubles/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/minimum-wage-productivity_n_2680639.html

I think what Chip and others are saying is that a mass minimum wage increase would, over a transitional period of time ,result in an equivalent rise in the cost of living. Thus the increase would only have a very short term benefit while the economy adjusted. And those slightly above the minimum wage would be worse off after the economy cost of living adjustment.

 

[Chip]

If I believed that paying the lowest wage job earners a given higher hourly wage would increase their standard of living without consequence, I would be all for it. I don't wan't anyone to be poor. I am simply skeptical of the government dictating the agreement between me and my employer/employee and the consequences of doing so.

As for the stats on how little more it would cost to a trip to Walmart, if there's one thing I know can lie, it's statistics. I have no doubt I could find stats showing much more grim numbers from someone biased against raising the minimum wage. It doesn't make either of them an accurate predictor of raising the minimum wage on our economy. But we all understand that if something costs more to get to market, its' price will rise. The only way around this is if the business decided to make less money. And they aren't usually inclined to do that.

 

[Duae]

The problem with the "raise it to $100" is it doesn't account for the cost saved. A big loss to companies is turnover and training and just plain apathy. If you're paying someone $7 an hour, you get what you pay for! But at a point it's no longer beneficial to raise pay.

Right now the thought it that you're buying a $5 thermostat that lasts one year. If you buy a $10 thermostat it lasts three years. Are you wasting your money going with a better one? No, because you're really saving $5 for a year, not spending $5 more. And the $15 one lasts 5 years, that's even better. But at a point, why buy a $300 thermostat? You can't live 600 years.

It's profitable for a company to raise minimum wage, up to a point. So even just raising it enough to adjust for the inflation that's already happened would help. They're no longer throwing away money on cheap thermostats and cooking their cohabbed snakes in the interest of quick, cheap profits.

 

[dave partington]

If one reverse thinks this, a conservative paradise would be.....

 

[vetusvates]

“ A liberal paradise would be a place where everybody has :

guaranteed employment,

free comprehensive healthcare,

free education,

free food,

free housing,

free clothing,

free utilities,

free lurve and affection...like a bromance buffet,

and

only law enforcement has guns.

--------------------------

Believe it or not, such a place does indeed exist !

It's called prison. ”

– Author Unknown

You left out free and liberally administered love and affection. I fixed it for you.

 

[vetusvates]

If one reverse thinks this, a conservative paradise would be.....

...no buffett...???...

 

[Chip]

The problem with the "raise it to $100" is it doesn't account for the cost saved. A big loss to companies is turnover and training and just plain apathy. If you're paying someone $7 an hour, you get what you pay for! But at a point it's no longer beneficial to raise pay.

You are assuming that every company hopes every employee becomes a permanent part of their work force *in that position*. If you start off in a company's mail room for example, in order to make more money, you have to be promoted to a higher position. The mail room is an entry level position. No matter how good you get at sorting mail, it's never going to pay $25 an hour.

Real life situation: a high school student is crazy about herps, and wanted to work a couple of hours after school with my snakes to learn more about them. He said he would volunteer and asked if I could pay him $5 bucks an hour. Putting aside the fact I don't let anyone mess with my collection, it would be against the law to pay him 5 an hour, but I can legally let him volunteer. Even though he would be gaining valuable experience doing something he loves, I can't pay him to do it unless I pay him more than the job would be worth for me. So I don't hire him. Odd to me that unpaid interns are everywhere, yet if you pay, it has to be over a given amount. Again, my point really amounts to, why should the government get involved in our agreement?

 

[kathylove]

Something to consider:

Back in the mid '90s I visited the Netherlands and visited some reptile keepers and their families. One of them told me that she couldn't find a job because the minimum wage varied, depending on age and other factors (school? experience? Can't remember the details). But she said that because she was middle aged and commanded a higher minimum wage than the teenagers, the companies hired youngsters instead of her - even though she said she had a great work ethic and experience that she thought would be valuable. Evidently the employers preferred cheap to whatever she offered instead.

The rules might have changed by now, and I can't remember the details of how she said it worked back then. But the point is that there are always consequences whenever an individual or company is forced to do something they feel is not in their best interests. So be prepared for unintended consequences before championing ANY law, or more involvement from gov't - no matter how benign it may seem before it is enacted. Of course some gov't regulation is required to oil the wheels of society. But I prefer just enough oil to keep the gears from grinding badly - no more than is absolutely needed.

 

[Michael823]

Real life situation: a high school student is crazy about herps, and wanted to work a couple of hours after school with my snakes to learn more about them. He said he would volunteer and asked if I could pay him $5 bucks an hour. Putting aside the fact I don't let anyone mess with my collection, it would be against the law to pay him 5 an hour, but I can legally let him volunteer. Even though he would be gaining valuable experience doing something he loves, I can't pay him to do it unless I pay him more than the job would be worth for me. So I don't hire him. Odd to me that unpaid interns are everywhere, yet if you pay, it has to be over a given amount. Again, my point really amounts to, why should the government get involved in our agreement?

Fair enough. Actually, I agree with you there. A person should have the right to negotiate terms that serve as low paying internships, if they choose. I think it would encourage younger people to start/grow a business earlier, if there were guidelines that allowed for flexibility in wage, early on. But the real job/role of the small business is to promote growth, and there should be a foreseeable increase in pay by those workers once they have worked up from students/interns to become counterparts in an profitable establishment.

But, to your point, it's really not realistic to pay more than $5 an hour, which could be a majority of what you currently may make, just to have a little help with your snakes, while teaching the ropes to a young kid.

 

[kathylove]

"...But the real job/role of the small business is to promote growth..."

I am not sure if you mean its job is to promote growth of the business itself, or to promote growth of the economy. But IMO, the first job of a business is to make a profit for its owner and / or investors. If they are looking for a long term, profitable investment, then that business will also provide great benefits to society in terms of employing people, providing needed goods and services, and becoming a valued part of the community. But providing a return to investors is paramount. Otherwise, there is no real motive to risk investing in an unknown value such as starting a new business.

 

[Michael823]

Meaning, I can look to every failed small-business in my area, and I see one trend--they lacked employees, or undervalued employees and lost them. They simply didn't grow.

 

[kathylove]

I agree...

If a company is to grow beyond an owner and his or her family manning it, then GOOD and WELL VALUED employees will be the lifeblood of that company. IMO, once a GOOD employee is hired, it is very short sighted to treat him (or her) as any less than that.

 

[Chip]

Meaning, I can look to every failed small-business in my area, and I see one trend--they lacked employees, or undervalued employees and lost them. They simply didn't grow.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Sounds like businesses that were doomed from the start from the way you put it. If you (business owner) don't have employees, it means there isn't more profitable work than you can do by yourself. That alone doesn't bode well. And if you treat good employees like crap and lose them, you certainly don't have the skills to run a business! I never understood managers who liked to minimize what their employees contributed. Even a douchey boss who didn't see his employees as human beings (who deserve to be allowed to be happy at work) should be able to see that unhappy people tend to do an uninspired job. I've had a couple of bosses like that. And last I heard, the worst one of them all is a cop now. Remind me not to speed in Shelby, NC.