- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Minimum Wage - Change my mind, or point me somewhere that can
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:17 pm to Dixie.Reb
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:17 pm to Dixie.Reb
quote:
If the employer doesn’t think the employee’s value is enough to offset the cost of that compensation, then they are free to fire them.
Be careful what you wish for.
0
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:18 pm to jimbeam
quote:
That individual is free to go find another job.
Read the thread. I already laid out why people are not “free” to get another job.
1) lack of public wage information means people don’t always know when they’re under paid
2) people are immediately effected negatively by unemployment (paying rent) much more than companies are by losing a worker (lower profits). Which give companies power over workers.
3) minimum wage workers can’t just pack up and leave - especially if they have a family. That costs money, which we’ve already established they don’t have
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:19 pm to Dixie.Reb
Sounds like a lot of personal responsibility that needs to be had. Guess we’ll never agree.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:28 pm to AUjim
Maybe the ceo could take a pay cut. Instead of 8 million a year maybe just 5 million.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:30 pm to AUjim
Minimum wage possibly could work, .... but only with strong price controls.
Price controls destroy an economy with a swiftness.
Price controls destroy an economy with a swiftness.
Posted on 1/21/21 at 11:59 pm to Dixie.Reb
quote:
quote:
What is mind boggling is how a poor class has cell phones, cable/satellite, big screen TVs, air conditioning.
A cell phone is required to get and maintain a job. The fact that you think air conditioning in the south should be a luxury is sad.
Replace cell phone with iphone and you can start to see why some people are permanently poor.
And you get ahead in life by owning things. In order to own things, it takes sacrifice. My discussion is about a permanently poor class who spends money as soon as it is in hand. You know who im talking about.
quote:
But you shouldn’t be profiting off their labor.
Lol. You have no clue what employment is. The laborer is guaranteed a profit. The employer isnt. As a matter of fact, many struggling companies pay the labor before the ownership. It can take years before there is profit.
quote:
quote:
A companies job is to make money plain and simple. Accept that
I refuse to accept that this should be allowed at all costs. That’s why we have OSHA and the EPA. To make sure that companies are not creating profits through exploitation.
You seem to be quick with the hyperbole (at all costs). Most businesses dont operate this way and you know it. But know this... without profit, the company ceases to exist. Without profit, the company could end up in bankruptcy and that guaranteed pay for the laborer could go to shite.
quote:
quote:
When efficiency and/or sales are up, there are bonuses and raises.
Lol. CEO’s have contracts that reward them even when they fail. In my example, my boss didn’t want to give a raise even though revenue went up. My point is that companies won’t share most of the gains from increased efficiency unless they are forced to. Which is why the current system is broken.
Fortune 500 firms are like baseball teams. CEOs are like baseball players. If you aspire to be the best, then you have to hire the best. The comp packages arent handed out for no reason. They are to attract the talent in a low supply environment.
Id love my company to have a reasonable CEO package (fortune 100) but there is no CEO with that package. Just like the yankees dont get Babe Ruth or Mariono Rivera without the obnoxious contracts.
As for forced raises, i cant speak for your specific raise. Maybe you are worth it. Maybe you arent. Im in sales. The purest form of capitalism on earth. I can make more money when i work longer, smarter, and more efficiently. I havent had to ask for a raise in 30 years. I want more money? Be better.
If your boss sucks and you are undervalued, then go out and get what you are worth. If more isnt out there, than it sounds like you are a bitchy employee.
quote:
It also shouldn’t matter if someone else can generate that same value (replaceability).
Lol. I was right. You are a bitchy employee. If you can be replaced, tread lightly. Economics are laws. Dont forget that as the economy turns.
quote:
quote:
Economic books have chapters on how efficiency improves at scale.
Responding to my statement that reality is not as simple as an economic textbook by telling me to read an economic textbook. Bold.
You were correct in relating efficiencies into growing market share. Im hoping to lead you to the realization that increased market share is a way to increase profits without changes to cost/price structure. Market share is a huge deal to corporations because they do not want to give up the margins. Shrinking margins is the definition of a poorly managed company (regardless of scale).
When you mandate wages about the economic forces, you havent improved efficiencies and youve increased costs. Either jobs are lost (is that ever a liberals goal) and/or prices are increased on the margins (a $100,000 increase in costs results in a $102,000 increase in price/revenue to maintain the margin). You are betting that the market share is still there at that price. You are betting that the industry demand isnt hurt at that price.
Tl/DR you may want to reread your textbooks.
quote:
quote:
You assume that a business owner who can lose everything is more powerful than an employee who is guaranteed a wage, taxes paid, SS/medicare.
Lol, what? A worker in an at will state is not guaranteed anything. They can be out of a job for no reason at all. It is much harder for a business to go bankrupt than an employee to get fired. And even bankrupt business owners usually don’t lose everything-LLC.
The worker is guaranteed more than the business owner. No?
And you forget about the capital in the business (common among liberals). A business owner who invests $100,000 of his/her own capital can lose a lot more than the employee. A business owner who secures debt against assets can lose a lot more than the employee.
Capital is not easy to come by. And for many businesses, the capital to grow the business is reinvesting what would have been profits back into the business. Ive worked at a job that had deferred compensation packages. That is called life/business for many business owners. And yes, years/decades of deferred compensation have been lost in this pandemic alone for many businesses who were forced to shut their doors.
quote:
quote:
Bull shite. That is never going away. You think a minimum wage changes welfare benefits?
Well, welfare benefits have income limits, so yes, I feel confident saying that if incomes increase then welfare usage will go down.
You should talk to tax professionals.
Youd be surprised at how many people work partial years to keep their benefits.
And $15/hr isnt getting families off food stamps, housing assistance, government subsidized healthcare.
You have to move those families into the middle class to do that. Artificially raising hourlies is going to put more people out of work or into a black labor market, and stifle small businesses who have the opportunity to make more middle class participants.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 12:28 am to meansonny
"It’s mind boggling how some don’t see what is wrong with someone not being able to support themselves on minimum wage for the bare necessities of life."
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to support anybody much less families. Minimum wage jobs (minimum skills) are for people who are starting out to get their feet wet, and a starting point for something bigger and better. PERIOD
If SOMEONE remains at this level, they are choosing to have a REALLY rough time in life by not staying in school, making REALLY bad youth decisions, starting a family WAY too early, getting pregnant or getting in trouble with the law, etc...
Minimum wage = minimum skill / easily replaced labor. If you walk away from a job and someone can step in and do your job in a day with a minimal training, you might be worth more, but you are getting paid for the service you provide.
Want a better pay, do more than provide easily replaceable labor.
Minimum wage jobs were never meant to support anybody much less families. Minimum wage jobs (minimum skills) are for people who are starting out to get their feet wet, and a starting point for something bigger and better. PERIOD
If SOMEONE remains at this level, they are choosing to have a REALLY rough time in life by not staying in school, making REALLY bad youth decisions, starting a family WAY too early, getting pregnant or getting in trouble with the law, etc...
Minimum wage = minimum skill / easily replaced labor. If you walk away from a job and someone can step in and do your job in a day with a minimal training, you might be worth more, but you are getting paid for the service you provide.
Want a better pay, do more than provide easily replaceable labor.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 7:19 am to Dixie.Reb
quote:
I have 3 guys that have been at the same rate for 3 months and won't get a raise because they are so sorry. I was quarantined this week and had to shut down the job because there is no one that could do anything at all without me there.
So fire them. Either someone contributes enough value to justify a livable wage, or you should find someone who does. What you shouldn’t do, is profit off of their labor without adequately compensating them for their time and effort.
Hard to find anyone else to just show up. There are times when I need people to just move shite hence allowing people to watch me work most of the time.
quote:
I am tired of killing myself everyday as the owner of a construction company in the field setting forms, knocking concrete down and finishing it by myself so that an unskilled can sit back and do jack shite.
That’s fair, you don’t want the hassle, fine. But you shouldn’t be profiting off their labor.
This is flat out the dumbest statement I've ever heard about work. I'm sorry, but it is. A company shouldn't profit off of someone's labor? Maybe you meant it this way or maybe you left out something or misspoke here. Of course a company should profit off someone's labor. Again, the job of a company is to make money and if you lose money doing everything then you won't be open long.
There is nothing like the American dream of employing people and not making any money.
quote:
I refuse to accept that this should be allowed at all costs. That’s why we have OSHA and the EPA. To make sure that companies are not creating profits through exploitation.
Who is saying anything about making money at any costs? OF course companies should do everything as safely as possible while maintaining production. Your idea of exploitation is just off base. No one here has said that people should be working in horrible conditions and making nothing for it. If I missed it, please quote it for me.
quote:
If an employee generates $50,000 of value for a company, it shouldn’t matter where that employee lives, they should be compensated according to their value. I’m not saying a federal minimum wage is the only way, but I think the locational pay is another tactic by large companies to justify underpaying workers. It also shouldn’t matter if someone else can generate that same value (replaceability). Whoever is doing the work should be compensated based on value.
How do you base value of work? Shoveling some dirt, playing for a few hours a day, watching someone else work without actually supervising and talking all day. How much is that worth? What if the value that someone brings is less than minimum wage?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:08 am to Warfarer
Well...essentially, nobody has done anything to change my mind from the original question, which is fine, because there have been some great and some not so great examples and thoughts.
I think the whole point is what most of us agree on:
Raising minimum wage to $15 is an arbitrary measure and political ploy that will not result in net gains for the people of our country.
My thoughts are:
But the discussion should be had, and is multifaceted. Addressing minimum wage as a single measure is indeed fool's gold and only appeases those without the ability to understand the full picture.
If someone is willing to work a full time job, they should be compensated at a level that takes into account the cost of living in their locale. I have no interest in raising them to the middle class. My only interest is in compensating people at a level where they are then eligible for and dependent upon additional government resources. An iphone should not be part of that. A flip phone probably should. A 2,500sqft house should not be a part of that. A 1 bedroom apartment probably should.
It is absolutely not acceptable for my pal to employ 5 guys, pay them 9.00/hour, and have them go be eligible for and supplementally dependent on SNAP or section 8 housing, when a minimum wage of $10.25/hour would actually take care of that last living cost deficit. That is absolutely passing the cost of doing business on to the rest of society, and therefore subsidizing that business. If you can't cover the cost of doing business, you don't have a business.
I think the whole point is what most of us agree on:
Raising minimum wage to $15 is an arbitrary measure and political ploy that will not result in net gains for the people of our country.
My thoughts are:
But the discussion should be had, and is multifaceted. Addressing minimum wage as a single measure is indeed fool's gold and only appeases those without the ability to understand the full picture.
If someone is willing to work a full time job, they should be compensated at a level that takes into account the cost of living in their locale. I have no interest in raising them to the middle class. My only interest is in compensating people at a level where they are then eligible for and dependent upon additional government resources. An iphone should not be part of that. A flip phone probably should. A 2,500sqft house should not be a part of that. A 1 bedroom apartment probably should.
It is absolutely not acceptable for my pal to employ 5 guys, pay them 9.00/hour, and have them go be eligible for and supplementally dependent on SNAP or section 8 housing, when a minimum wage of $10.25/hour would actually take care of that last living cost deficit. That is absolutely passing the cost of doing business on to the rest of society, and therefore subsidizing that business. If you can't cover the cost of doing business, you don't have a business.
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 9:10 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:23 am to AUjim
There was a debate on this topic on CNBC this morning. I saw it, but couldn’t listen. If anyone has a link, please share.
Also, book:
Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson (can be found free online)
Also, book:
Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson (can be found free online)
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:40 am to rrboy
quote:
Maybe the ceo could take a pay cut. Instead of 8 million a year maybe just 5 million.
He could. You are correct.
Or, he could cut labor costs by 3 million.
If either was an option that would work, what do you think he would choose?
Posted on 1/22/21 at 9:52 am to rrboy
quote:
Maybe the ceo could take a pay cut. Instead of 8 million a year maybe just 5 million.
Yea, why not bruh, he's just playing golf all day anyway amirite? Why not take a 50% haircut for the temporary marginal improvement of the buying power of people he may or may not even employ. The rich will pay for it.
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 9:55 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 10:05 am to rrboy
quote:
Maybe the ceo could take a pay cut. Instead of 8 million a year maybe just 5 million.
The problem is that the businesses this will hurt worst will be the ones just trying to make a living and get by, small business. Raising minimum wage will make it to where small business has no chance of competing with big business.
My first Econ class at auburn, the teacher told a story of when Walmart came to auburn at first. There used to be several small shops and drug stores in auburn. All of them went out of business except one, toomers drugs. The way they survived was that they went to Walmart and bought all of their goods (they could buy stuff cheaper from Walmart than they could suppliers) and left the tags on the stuff. They had a 10% markup, or whatever it was, on all the good over the tagged price for their friendly service and local people. They survived by adapting but when you double labor costs on a small business that can’t absorb it, they go under.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 10:05 am to Pendulum
Executive compensation is a whole different thread, but it is broken in this country, especially in publically traded companies. Corporate governance is a joke, especially when it comes to comp. Executive compensation consultants get hired and good luck ever getting another job if you suggest the execs are overpaid.
Onto minimum wage. At the very least, a drastic change like this has no business at the federal level. It should be a state and city issue.
Increasing minium wage should come with a decrease in welfare payments and with that possibly a tax relief for businesses. But there is a problem of large corporations using pt work that is subsidized by the government because the employees are on welfare.
It's a big messy, complicated issue, but having a drastic increase like 15/hr will have an avalanche of unintended consequences.
Onto minimum wage. At the very least, a drastic change like this has no business at the federal level. It should be a state and city issue.
Increasing minium wage should come with a decrease in welfare payments and with that possibly a tax relief for businesses. But there is a problem of large corporations using pt work that is subsidized by the government because the employees are on welfare.
It's a big messy, complicated issue, but having a drastic increase like 15/hr will have an avalanche of unintended consequences.
This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 10:08 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 10:36 am to barry
quote:
Onto minimum wage. At the very least, a drastic change like this has no business at the federal level. It should be a state and city issue.
Agree with you. My logical ordering for thinking about this:
1. Let the market set wages, but if that's too "capitalistic" for you and you require floor on wages, then:
2. Set this at the state level, to better capture cost of living differences amongst the various states, but if that's too "states' rights" for you and you require a federal "solution," then:
3. For the love of God, require that any "federal minimum wage" include COLAs amongst the various states.
I view #2 as a transfer of market power from blue states to red states, as state-by-state solutions would encourage manufacturing to go to lower cost, more rural red states. BUT - the blue states would at least have a solution with this approach (mark wages to market, and if that means no one can afford to live in your cities, ask yourself why)
I view #3 as a transfer of market power from red states to blue states, as a federal solution that doesn't take cost of living into account penalizes lower cost states moreso than higher cost states. In fact, given recent events, I think it's even arguable this is "punishment for Trump states."
A minimum wage in itself is arguably bad. But a federal minimum wage that doesn't take COLA into account is downright ludicrous.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 10:43 am to Pendulum
quote:
Yea, why not bruh, he's just playing golf all day anyway amirite? Why not take a 50% haircut for the temporary marginal improvement of the buying power of people he may or may not even employ. The rich will pay for it.
It's pretty frustrating working at a company, when layoffs are happening, seeing your friends get shitcanned, while some dude who everyone knows is worthless is making $2million/year
Thankfully my company finally wised up and trimmed him along with a lot of the executives
Posted on 1/22/21 at 11:02 am to RedStickBR
quote:
But a federal minimum wage that doesn't take COLA into account is downright ludicrous.
This is hilarious because if you've ever done work for the federal government, they give you a link to a table, and based on the city you are staying in you get a certain amount for hotel and meal reimbursements.
Posted on 1/22/21 at 11:15 am to TheIndulger
quote:
It's pretty frustrating working at a company, when layoffs are happening, seeing your friends get shitcanned, while some dude who everyone knows is worthless is making $2million/year
Thankfully my company finally wised up and trimmed him along with a lot of the executives
The problem is, this all sounds great, everyone knows the ceo is "worthless", sure, whatever, he gets trimmed by the board, so they adjusted his value, instead of replacing him with someone less "worthless" at the same market rate.
Problem is 50% of this country's GDP is from small business; where the narrative above is not applicable, yet this minimum wage law will effect greatly.
This post was edited on 1/23/21 at 12:08 am
Posted on 1/22/21 at 11:52 am to braindeadboxer
quote:Minimum wage is a price control on labor. And you're right about the predictable result in the low-end of the labor market.
Minimum wage possibly could work, .... but only with strong price controls.
Price controls destroy an economy with a swiftness.
We are at a historic point--replacing labor with automation has never been easier and cheaper. The idea that making is even cheaper (relative to labor) will help workers... is... stunningly short sighted.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News