Minimum Wage Increase

[PennyQuilts]

That's laughable. My experience with arbitration is that it's basically a kangaroo court.

Well, it is not arbitration but I am a big believer in mediation for domestic cases and employment cases. A lot of lawyers just hate them and I have never been able to under stand why unless it is because they: 1) have less power in negotiating and 2) make less money.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[andy157]

You could make minimum wage $100 an hour and the people working would still be living the same quality of life they are today at $7 an hour. The employees only see temporary relief when a wage increase occurs. In 6 months to year the employee is back at same quality of life.

Every time the wage goes up so does the cost of living. Businesses do not eat the cost of wage increases. They recover the lost income through price increases, reduction of staff and reduction of services.

If they really want to improve the wage situation in this country they need sell people on the idea of seeking additional job training and obtaining a formal education. Few minimum wage workers realize they could be in a good paying job in as little as two weeks to two years.

Thunder I am suprised you don't get in touch with the Department of Rehabiltation Services. Your hearing impairment qualifies you for head of the line privelages at many state and federal jobs. Not to mention there are several non profit enterprises out there that would help you land a great paying job.

The quality of life for an employee making $7 an hour, would be the same as if that same employee was making a $100 an hour? Thats somewhat hard to believe, but maybe.

[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.

[Luke]

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

If the government forced them to? Yes.

[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.

[Thunder]

Oklahoma law allows resturants that accept tips to pay their workers 3 bux (or $2.10), because the tips figure into their income.

Crest is very kind to not stoop that low.

[possumfritter]

Thunder,

Funny you should mention Crest because I "tip" the Bagboy every week, as I do my Barber.

And that's all reportable income? I did not know that.

Thanks

[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.

[Midtowner]

Well, it is not arbitration but I am a big believer in mediation for domestic cases and employment cases. A lot of lawyers just hate them and I have never been able to under stand why unless it is because they: 1) have less power in negotiating and 2) make less money.

Arbitration I do not like for domestic cases. I've actually never heard of such a thing and would be shocked if it exists. Allowing some non-judicial fact finder to make decisions regarding things like child custody without the rules of evidence and without any formal rules of procedure? Scary... actually... sounds sort of like a Guardian Ad Litem ;-)

Mediation is fine though. I've seen it work in some of the most unworkable cases. I'm a big believer in it for domestic cases, actually.

[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.

[Nermel]

Im sorry, but if you want to earn more than minimum wage, do it yourself. Learn some skills, don't use the police power of government to demand a payraise because you lack the skills to earn more. If you are a healthy adult, and incapable of earning more than minimum wage, you are a loser - plain and simple.

Meanwhile, someone making $20-30k a year will have to pay more for goods and services as a result of minimum wage increasing. However, people earning minimum wage will keep receiving handouts (food stamps, $2 a month phone service, etc). We are removing incentives for people to want to earn more than $7.25 an hour by virtue of giving hand outs to the "poor" and making their lives more comfortable.

[Luke]

We are removing incentives for people to want to earn more than $7.25 an hour by virtue of giving hand outs to the "poor" and making their lives more comfortable.

All the while giving those just above minimum wage a reason to drop down, save money, save time and qualify for government handouts that the rest of pay for.

[gmwise]

I think its best for the private sector to pay some extra, then for the government to pay it all,,,ie the private sector, and me.
At least there's some labor involved.

[Bunty]

What if employers were free to pay as little as they wanted to, such as $3 an hour? It would just mean more people wanting to get on welfare and we all know how awful that conservatives abhor the welfare state.

[Bunty]

All the while giving those just above minimum wage a reason to drop down, save money, save time and qualify for government handouts that the rest of pay for.

As highly expensive as it is to enjoy a modern life, it's hard to believe that hardly anyone would want to step back down in pay to enjoy welfare. The government isn't going to give away 50" plasma or LCD HDTVs in return for being poor and staying that away. Or pay for a $100 a month cable bill.

[gmwise]

Well I deal with some folks who knows what a need and a want is.
You dont have to be poor to be stupid with money or energy use for example.
Ok another pet peeve needs to be listed....those who bitched about how expensive gas is YET sit in a damn drive thru for 10 minutes waiting for a damn burger then parking and waiting useless damn f*cks arrgh
another reason to Kick gas prices to 5$ a gal.

[PennyQuilts]

What if employers were free to pay as little as they wanted to, such as $3 an hour? It would just mean more people wanting to get on welfare and we all know how awful that conservatives abhor the welfare state.

You are making a false argument. There is nothing to suggest that minimum wage is getting anyone off welfare. If that is all they had coming in, they'd still qualify assuming they had enough kids or a disability.

[Midtowner]

What if employers were free to pay as little as they wanted to, such as $3 an hour? It would just mean more people wanting to get on welfare and we all know how awful that conservatives abhor the welfare state.

Employers already do this. They simply hire illegal immigrants rather than people with social security numbers who would demand niceties like W-2s, 1099s and minimum wage and such.

[Luke]

As highly expensive as it is to enjoy a modern life, it's hard to believe that hardly anyone would want to step back down in pay to enjoy welfare. The government isn't going to give away 50" plasma or LCD HDTVs in return for being poor and staying that away. Or pay for a $100 a month cable bill.

When I was a teacher, I had to be frugal with my expenses because that's the way it goes as a teacher. I was shocked when I found out someone I knew on welfare had a nice TV and cable.

I wasn't able to get cable until my current job afforded the opportunity to enjoy that luxury.

You'd be surprised how cushy it can be as a welfare recipient.

Nice rims, nice shoes and video games.

[PennyQuilts]

Anyone who wants to know the net result of a high minimum wage should check out France.

[USG '60]

Yeah, and nearly half the year off for holiday, right?

[PennyQuilts]

Yeah, and nearly half the year off for holiday, right?

Right.

Their unemployment for young people is through the roof. The civil unrest that comes from young people with nothing to do and no real way to climb the ladder is dangerous.