To "Back Talk" actually it doesn't let people be abused, unless
they want to be abused. What it does is to force people to take responsibility
for themselves.Do you know more about how somebody else should live
than they do themselves? You act like people need protecting, and that you are
smarter than they are and can protect them. The fact is if nobody protects
them, they will quickly learn to do more for themselves.Read the
article "Parents who 'snowplow' deprive kids of learning to clear
their own paths" from yesterday's DN. You want to be the
"snowplow" for others. It is a bad idea.
Laws are made to help prevent abuse. Letting only the market determine the base
pay for a worker sets people up to be abused and taken advantage of becuase of
their circumstances. Increasing the minium wage over time seems
reasonable to me. It doesnt have to match inflation every year but over time
it should definitely increase.
What is missing in all of these discussions is talk about the quality of the
proposed worker and their desire to actually work. As a small business owner
and as a former boss at a business of thirty employees, I can tell you that
there are many out there that do not know how to work and many who have no
desire to work.Minimum pay to me is far less of an issue than minimum work
ethic is. Contribute your share and I would dare say you probably will get paid
for it. As far as Walmart goes, are you like me at checkout? Do you look to
see which line is actually moving because of the quickness of the cashier?
@techpubsIf I create or provide you a good job with benefits, what
is my value to you?The Gap proves nothing. The only
question that needs be answered is are you paid a fair wage for your labor or
services?Considering what some one else makes is irrelevant and is
all about greed.Yes, poor and middle class are just as greedy as the
upper class, they Justas human, and are people too.
Question, Why is it ok to attack minimum wage workers for being unskilled, but
give a complete pass to companies like Wal Mart and McDonalds for making their
billions on the back of the American taxpayer? Don't think that's
true? Then chew on this for a minute. Be realistic, can someone making $1200 a
month before taxes(federal min [email protected] 40 hours a week) actually survive? No, so
they take food stamps, section 8 housing and Medicaid. McDonalds literally had a
help line that encouraged employee's to sign up for food stamps, and gave
them instructions on how to do it. In 2012 7 billion was spent on benefits for
fast food employees. This is why i'm against welfare for working people,
Wal Mart can afford to pay a wage where we(taxpayers) don't subsidize their
labor costs. People who actually work should be paid enough to eat that month,
and if a company can't do that then they should close the doors.
@Brave Sir Robin"1. The federal minimum wage has been raised 39 times
in the history of this country. None of those have succeeded in reducing poverty
or creating greater income equality. What makes you think doing it for the 40th
time will make the outcome any different?"It's sort of the
reverse to me. I think not raising it, if left unchanged long enough, makes
things worse, and that the occasional increase to keep it in line with inflation
prevents harm. "2. If raising the minimum wage is economic
panacea, why not raise it more? Why not make it $50 or $100/hour?"Conservatives are correct when they say that there exists a level of minimum
wage high enough that it causes more harm than good. We just disagree as to
where that level is. Over the past 50 years the minimum wage has oscillated
between around 6 and 10.50 in current dollars adjusted for inflation so I
wouldn't personally support anything that really goes beyond the upper end
of that range (with the exception perhaps of localized towns like in New York
City neighborhoods where cost of living is sky high).
Chris B:Unfortunately most times the person that is drawing those wages
has not added 300x the value to the company by himself. If 3 different workers
in 3 different areas of that company come up with ideas where the production is
increased by changing a process or purchasing a different tool to help them work
at a faster rate while maintaining quality output may increase 300x. But the one
at the top will not tell the Board of Directors that Joe, Pete, and Bill
increased productivity. He will instead productivity has increased 300x
under my management so I deserve more pay.
This is such great news! I'm so excited! How refreshing! This president
gets stuff done for workers rather than merely letting the country go down the
toilet and start 2 Unfunded wars and tax breaks to his richie buddies!I'm so glad that finally workers will be paid their dues! It's nice
to see that working people, people who actually produce things, are rewarded. I
was beginning to think that only the rich could be rewarded in this country
anymore. I mean, for decades now workers haven't seen wage increases even
though CEOs have seen record profits!Glad that we finally have a
president who looks out for us! Is there a way we could give him a 3rd term?
The cost to taxpayers for this increase is marginal compared to expense of
continued corporate-welfare policies.
To "cjb" yes, let the market decide. For example, the In-and-Out Burger
place in Centerville was recently looking to add more employees. They
advertised a starting wage of $10/hr. Nobody forced them to offer that wage.Another great example is Costco. They pay their employees well, and
have the idea that it saves them money in the long run because they don't
have to train employes often and their customers get to know the employees.
Contrast that with Walmart. It is rare to see the same person there for more
than 3 months.The walmart employees get in, get experience, then get
out as quickly as possible. In the end, it costs the company money. However,
since so many people shop there, they can afford the loss.Also
consider the entire group that works for minimum wage. Tell me, why should a
teenage kid with no work experience or skills be paid $10/hr or more. What do
they need with that amount of money?
"The minimum wage law requires employers to discriminate against persons
with low skills. No one describes it that way. But that is in fact what it is.
Take a poorly educated teenage with little skill whose services are worth, say,
only $2.00 an hour. He or she might be eager to work for that wage in order to
acquire greater skills that would permit a better job. The law says that such a
person may be hired only if the employer is willing to pay him or her $2.90 an
hour. Unless an employer is willing to add 90 cents in charity to the $2.00
that the person’s services are worth, the teenager will not be employed.
It has always been a mystery to us why a young person is better off unemployed
from a job that would pay $2.90 an hour than employed at a job that does pay
$2.00 an hour. The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially
black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest."
Milton Friedman's quote in 1979 applies today.
Most Federal contractors are already paying over $10 an hour. "
minimum wages should reflect the supply and demand for workers and their skills.
Leaving minimum wage decisions to each state better aligns local wages with
local needs and the local supply of laborers."Do we really want
to go there? US businesses have manipulated the supply and demand for decades
using illegal workers, visas and legal immigration. The low income worker has
seen depressed wages for decades. Switzerland is defying the EU open borders by
restricting people coming their from other EU countries for work. They are also
forcing business to hire locals first. The tide is turning. This
great country thinks less of the poor than Australia ($15) and several other
countries paying over $10 an hour, including Japan.
All minimum wage does is freeze out the workers who aren't worth the
required minimum and make jobs disappear when it doesn't produce enough
profit to justify the pay. You can't make a business pay more than it will
make a profit at.Examples: Even a lazy, incompetent could find a job
at a dollar per hour. At $10/hour, he is unemployed. A fast food restaurant is
happy to hire counter workers at some rates. But eventually, it is cheaper to
replace them with automated point of sale equipment.
It's pretty blatant, Obama is buying more votes for Democrats with taxpayer
money. There are still opportunities for growth. You can get a college degree
largely for free in Utah if you make just the minimum wage through grants.A huge, forced hike in minimum wage is going to cripple small
businesses. These are not the people making millions per year that could afford
the hike by reducing their bonuses.
Two questions for those who support raising the minimum wage:1. The
federal minimum wage has been raised 39 times in the history of this country.
None of those have succeeded in reducing poverty or creating greater income
equality. What makes you think doing it for the 40th time will make the outcome
any different?2. If raising the minimum wage is economic panacea, why not
raise it more? Why not make it $50 or $100/hour?I would love to
hear some honest answers.
I get the economic theory here and don't believe in punishing the
successful. However, I'm also aware that the $10 level simply
squares up minimum wage to meet the CP index so that today's minimum wage
matches up with the minimum wage from the 60s.
techpubs,If I start a company and I add create 300X the value of an
assembly line person putting stickers on boxes, I should be paid 300X more than
the guy putting stickers on boxes. Barack has no place in deciding
how much I should be paid. Silly to suggest arbitrary levels that don't
reflect the reality of discrepancies is value added activities. Showing that the gap has changes doesn't prove or show anything. If the
top performers today are more valuable than they were 30 years ago, they should
be compensated for it.
Yes, raising the minimum wage for federal contractors affects us all. And
that's a good thing. It's good for workers, and good for business.
It's time many in the business community recognize the benefit of more
disposible income for consumers. It means more economic activity and less
pressure on government programs to assist the poor.Oh, and I'm
OK with not being like South Carolina and Alabama. We can do som much better
than using these states as something to emulate. Yikes!
Let's say that someone started working for me 3 years ago. I hired them at
the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They were unskilled and knew nothing about
work. They now make $10.00 an hour with their new skills in hand.All of a sudden, the minimum wage is raised to $10.00 per hour. That person
is now making the same thing that a new, unskilled worker that knows nothing
about work. How is this equitable? You can say that I should also
raise the wage of the skilled worker. If you know anything about business,
there is only so much available from the budget to pay wages. Once I reach that
point, I either raise my prices to cover the increased costs, (competition
dictates that I cannot do that) or I terminate the employment of some of my
people so I can stay on budget. Which do you think I would choose?One other reason to not raise the minimum wage: That $10.00 you are earning
now because of the increase in the minimum wage would purchase the same thing
that $7.25 was used to purchase before the increase. How have you improved your
I agree with president Obama. Those who cook food for the troups ought to have
decent pay, a living wage. To those who say let the market decide, you mean the
same market wherein corporate execs get 500+ times what their average worker
makes?No thanks, the market as it exists has something wrong with
it. Your economic theory sounds oh so good in isolation but where the rubber
meets the road it doesn't always hold water.
The President and the states can raise the minimum wage to any level they wish,
but one thing will always be paramount in the interraction between labor and
business: Paraphrasing what Jeff Goldblum said in "Jurassic Park"
("Life will always find a way!"), in any business venture requiring
financial risk and creativity to prosper, profit will always "find a
way." Workers can demand all the higher pay they want, even
earning the support of politicians who want to close the financial gap between
"haves and have-nots," but without the requisite skills required to make
themselves valuable to employers, they may eventually find themselves with no
job and a minimum wage of zero. As the article said,"minimum wages should
reflect the supply and demand for workers and their skills," not some fiat
from politicians pandering to stay elected.
Obviously raising minimum wages will increase the overall costs of items. A better choice would be to reduce the difference between the top compensation
allowed and the lowest compensation allowed. In the 50's and 60's the
top compensation was no more than 30x the bottom. Today the top is 300x the
I disagree that it affects us all. Many people don't pay their share of
taxes...Once again, this disproportionately affects the few who pay the majority
of the nation's taxes. Another backwards thought, that appeals to the
masses on the public dole, brought to you by our socialist president b.o.