Minimum Wage Increase

[Thunder]

Federal minimum wage increase will take effect on July 24th. Oklahoma will see the raise. I, for one, is very excited to be getting a raise. Who else is?

Millions of U.S. workers to see pay raise with minimum wage hike to $7.25 - BloggingStocks

[Luke]

Federal minimum wage increase will take effect on July 24th. Oklahoma will see the raise. I, for one, is very excited to be getting a raise. Who else is?

Millions of U.S. workers to see pay raise with minimum wage hike to $7.25 - BloggingStocks

I'm certainly not.

Employers will either have to eat profit (yeah, right), fire people to meet the new wage, and/or more likely pass the costs of their goods and services to us, making everything cost that much more.

[Thunder]

I'm certainly not.

Employers will either have to eat profit (yeah, right), fire people to meet the new wage, and/or more likely pass the costs of their goods and services to us, making everything cost that much more.

So, you would rather have people working so hard to earn barely enough to pay rent and bills with no good times?

[Luke]

So, you would rather have people working so hard to earn barely enough to pay rent and bills with no good times?

I would rather retailers, businesses and service providers compete for employees by setting their own pay scales.

I mean, if a minimum wage is supposed to include the necessity of paying rent, all bills and have a good time, then why not make it $20 an hour or $30? Why stop at $7?

[Midtowner]

So, you would rather have people working so hard to earn barely enough to pay rent and bills with no good times?

No one should be entitled to any wage.

[Thunder]

No one should be entitled to any wage.

So, are you saying that people shouldn't be entitle to the money they work so hard to earn? Are you saying that people should be working hard for free? All just to bring shocking low prices to you?

[Luke]

So, are you saying that people shouldn't be entitle to the money they work so hard to earn? Are you saying that people should be working hard for free? All just to bring shocking low prices to you?

Low wages would lead to cheaper products that even those low wage earners could afford.

[PennyQuilts]

So, you would rather have people working so hard to earn barely enough to pay rent and bills with no good times?

Yes. It would encourage them to either stay there long enough to get a raise or find a better job. Upwardly mobile and all that. Minimum wage never was and never will be a livable wage. Think about it - to pay for it, the cost of goods will go up to pay for it and where does that end? Generations of people managed to survive without a minimum wage that was worth much. It won't kill this generation to pay their dues the way the rest of us did.

[andy157]

I'm certainly not.

Employers will either have to eat profit (yeah, right), fire people to meet the new wage, and/or more likely pass the costs of their goods and services to us, making everything cost that much more.

Would the same be true regarding multi-million dollar management bonus packages?

[Luke]

Would the same be true regarding multi-million dollar management bonus packages?

If the government forced them to? Yes.

[Luke]

Why not $20/hr?

[Luke]

I'm not saying Thunder does this, but I do know of some Deaf people who opt not to work (or not work too much) so their Social Security payment is not disturbed.

[USG '60]

I'm not saying Thunder does this, but I do know of some Deaf people who opt not to work (or not work too much) so their Social Security payment is not disturbed.

Knowing Thunder as we do, I would be totally shocked if that were the case. He show diligence and integrity in a LOT of ways.

Thunder, I know it probably feels like us old conservatives are being cruel to you and others on MW, but truly that is not the case. Back when I was an active contractor and I need help and someone came to me for work I would forst ask about how much experience they had and how much wage they needed. Often a guy would tell me that he had very little experience and that he really needed (say) 8 bucks and hour, I would tell them that they would be worth more than that if they were good learners and showed up ready for work. I would start them out at $10 and then look forward to the time that I could give them a surprise raise. I was a damn good teacher and an appreciative employer. I lost most of my help because they became good enough to compete with me. I always encourage it and often gave them some of my old tools to use until they could afford better ones. Most of them are still friends today.

Granted not all employers are that anxious for their employees to be THAT successful, but they all need good workers and will pay more when necessary to get and/or keep them. In a REALLY free market employees would compete just like businesses have to. When we create minimum wages we are saying that anyone whose labor isn't worth X dollars don't deserve to work at all. They knock the bottom rungs off the ladder to success. Even though I was quite generous with my employees I don't believe the gov't should have the right to tell me how much to pay.

My guess is that you are probably on of the best employees as your level at Crest and that you deserve a raise. You would more likely get that raise if the boss was free to pay the shirkers less in order to reward you that raise. MW laws set an arbitrarily low wage that employers can "blame" for your low pay.

In union jobs the go-getters are usually frowned on and accused of trying to make the others look bad in order to "browny" up the boss to get a promotion, knowing there ain't gonna be a raise without being promoted. It tends to make everyone ADEQUATE workers but no more. As you find a ladder to climb avoid "union shops" as you will never be appreciated.

Knowing your interest and knowledge of weather, I am surprised you haven't tried to get some of that help mentioned above in order to try to get into that field. I can't help believe that you you would love it. It is doable, man, one way or another.

In short, I want you to make a LOT more money but by getting what you are worth and not with an increase in MW. It needs to go away completely.

[PennyQuilts]

Knowing your interest and knowledge of weather, I am surprised you haven't tried to get some of that help mentioned above in order to try to get into that field. I can't help believe that you you would love it. It is doable, man, one way or another.

In short, I want you to make a LOT more money but by getting what you are worth and not with an increase in MW. It needs to go away completely.

I think the same way. The sky should be the limit for Thunder. He shouldn't settle for minimum wage.

[possumfritter]

I learned from a neighbor of mine, that works at Applebees as a bartender, that he makes less than $3.00 an hour.

Why doesn't the minimum wage laws apply to people that work in the Food Service industry?

Brings to mind that commercial Wright Business School had on TV some years back. A waitress comes to the table to take the customers order, and the customer recognized the waitress from High School and says, "what happened to you?" Then the commercial goes on about making your life better by enrolling in Wright Busines School. It was very demeaning to those working in the restaurant business. And they don't receive minimum wage?

Raise the mimimum wage and folks might actually be able to have a half way decent life waiting on the folks that have had some of the advantages and opportunities that they didn't have.

[PennyQuilts]

Raise the mimimum wage and folks might actually be able to have a half way decent life waiting on the folks that have had some of the advantages and opportunities that they didn't have.

Oh gag me. Sorry - that is a little harsh. Just because you work as waitstaff doesn't mean you didn't have advantages others didn't. And just because someone has a crappy job, in general, doesn't mean they lacked opportunities. It generally comes down to what you do with the opportunities you have.

And for what it is worth, I don't know anyone doing well who didn't have some pretty crappy jobs coming up. Name me someone who walked into a six figure income without paying their dues and I will be suitably impressed. Oh sure, some kids inherit the family fortune but that is definitely a tiny number.

My kids make tons more than I ever will and they worked as waitstaff for years. Where do people get the idea that waitstaff just lacked opportunities? I know women who are waitresses who never lifted a finger for decades before husband left them for a sweet young thing. Sad, but those women frequently lived VERY well for most of their life and never bothered to get training or education. And I also know plenty of waitresses who are single moms by choice. They didn't have to become single moms but they squandered the opportunities life gave them and there you go.

I recall driving in icestorms to get home after class near midnight, knowing I'd be up several times during the night with babies and that the next day would be starting in just a few hours. Hard times. Someone who sat around and waited for their ship to come in is NOT someone I feel sorry for. We all make choices. It would be condescending for me to think that the poor waiter is just disadvantaged, poor thing.

Sorry to be so prickly. I just hate it when I see people make assumptions about "poor" people without stopping to think about reality.

[dismayed]

Why stop there. Why have laws that require health care for employees working full time. Why define full time as only 40 hours per week. Why have laws requiring payment for overtime for non-professionals. Why have child labor laws. Why require someone to pass a bar to become a lawyer, or become licensed to do professional work, let's just let the market decide. Why have OSHA standards? Why have age, sex, pregnancy, and ethnicity non-discrimination requirements on the books for companies employing over 15 people. Let the market decide.

While we are at it, why should the government be interfering with the sales of products in a free market. Why have health codes that restaurants must meet. Just let someone die of food poisoning or transmission of an infectious disease. Then the market will decide what businesses stay open and which ones close. Why regulate aircraft manufacturers. When planes start falling out of the air the market will decide which corporation makes the best planes.

When all of the above turns to total crap, I can't wait to see the lawsuits start flying. Since the legal profession won't be regulated either, I'll just set up my own shop and make a fortune. Until the market decides I need to close up shop.

[USG '60]

What court are you going to file it in?

[Luke]

Why stop there. Why have laws that require health care for employees working full time.

INDEED!

Why define full time as only 40 hours per week.

Yeah!

Why have laws requiring payment for overtime for non-professionals.

Sounds good!

Why have child labor laws.

Agreed!

Why have OSHA standards?

No kidding.

Why have age, sex, pregnancy, and ethnicity non-discrimination requirements on the books for companies employing over 15 people.

Agreed! The government shouldn't have a monopoly on discrimination either. If people want to be bigots, the first amendments protect them.

While we are at it, why should the government be interfering with the sales of products in a free market.

Yes! Prices would go down and products would get even better.

Then the market will decide what businesses stay open and which ones close.

Duh, that's the way it should be!

Now you're sounding like a freedom and liberty lover!

[dismayed]

Yes! Prices would go down and products would get even better.

Although my post was somewhat tongue in cheek as you know, I don't necessarily have any major disagreements with anyone who would argue these points. The only one I just can't come to grips with is the one quoted above. I suppose my reluctance on this point is that I foresee that if we got rid of product/food/safety regulations we would end up with products as cheap and as safe as the products we get from China. As the market has shown it is somewhat irrational, and price always seems to win out over safety, even when the risk factor is something very serious, such as death. That being the case, the market equilibrium point would probably land somewhere in a cheaper and less safe area, probably so far into the cheaper realm that it would be difficult for safer products to compete, even on a differentiation market plan (e.g. we're more expensive but we're a luxury and we're safe!).

Just my random thoughts though. Curious on your opinion.

[Luke]

I suppose my reluctance on this point is that I foresee that if we got rid of product/food/safety regulations we would end up with products as cheap and as safe as the products we get from China.

A couple things about this statement.

1) Maybe companies would not need to go overseas in order to manufacture goods if the red tape and bureaucracy of doing business in America didn't pad the price of those goods so much.

2) There are current government regulations in place regarding goods imported from China and yet we see tainted this and dangerous that coming to our shores everyday. That alone says a whole lot.

As the market has shown it is somewhat irrational, and price always seems to win out over safety, even when the risk factor is something very serious, such as death. That being the case, the market equilibrium point would probably land somewhere in a cheaper and less safe area, probably so far into the cheaper realm that it would be difficult for safer products to compete, even on a differentiation market plan (e.g. we're more expensive but we're a luxury and we're safe!).

Sure, that may happen.

But, I foresee a different scenario.

Companies would be set up to establish those standards by which other companies would want to comply. Kind of like how some people will not buy anything without this seal of approval or that rating from Consumer Reports.

Manufacturers could afford testing because things would be cheaper without forced taxed regulation.

Further, a store like walmart could say, "We will not sell any product that has not passed X inspection by (reliable inspection company)."

Private road owners (I know, I know) may say, "Only cars that meet (Car Tester of America) standards may drive on our roads."

Say an "untested" company starts to make it big. Maybe a testing company will come out and say, "Hey, this company is gaining popularity, but be careful they have not subjected their products to testing by any testing company."

Companies might start up mailing lists or ad campaigns alerting people to which companies do and do not do X or Y.

A system like this would have natural checks and balances.

And if a company causes injury, they have to be held responsible.

We can't imagine the innovative safety procedures that could be thought of as long as an inneffective government safety agency wants to monopolize those standards.

I guess my main point is this: the idea that the government and only the government can do a better job at these things than private companies could, to me, is just messed up.

Just look at how government does things. They spend so much money. Our money, whether we use that service or not. They are not nearly as effective as a comparable private entity. And with no profit motive, all they have to do is raise taxes on us.

[dismayed]

Why file it in court. Why don't you set up an arbitration corporation. Let the market decide the outcome.

I must be thinking too small. Why stop at providing legal services when you can be the entire court system. I'll start up an arbitration firm as well. Since all the Sherman laws go out the window, I'll call you up and tell you what my pricing structure is and we can price fix everything.

[USG '60]

You don't merit a response. But keep on going... I'm sure you are being entertained by it.

[dismayed]

You don't merit a response. But keep on going... I'm sure you are being entertained by it.

Seriously, why not? Luke was kind enough to respond. His stance is consistent as always. Why have some of these safe-guards in place, but not the others? Are some more significant than others? Are any of them truly significant?

[USG '60]

Seriously, why not? Luke was kind enough to respond. His stance is consistent as always. Why have some of these safe-guards in place, but not the others? Are some more significant than others? Are any of them truly significant?

And I appreciate Luke picking up my slack. To give really good answers to each of those issues would require WAY more typing time than I have OR a face to face for a few hours. PM me if you want face time over a beer or a pop. Bring a note pad because there will be a reading list.