Workers want pay boost

[Cubfan300]

Nothing so exotic, I'm afraid. I just find that a name like Slappy Magoo keeps me grounded and humble.

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? I think that would bring some perspective to this discussion. I, for example, am an IT manager, but I was Radio Shack manager many moons ago.

When I hear that the minimum wage is going up, I immediately wonder where I would have cut costs to maintain my margins, where 3% sales growth and 12% profit were the absolute floors. If my salary expense were suddenly increased by 20-25%, I would have had some serious issues.

 

[slappy magoo]

Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living? I think that would bring some perspective to this discussion. I, for example, am an IT manager, but I was Radio Shack manager many moons ago.

When I hear that the minimum wage is going up, I immediately wonder where I would have cut costs to maintain my margins, where 3% sales growth and 12% profit were the absolute floors. If my salary expense were suddenly increased by 20-25%, I would have had some serious issues.

I've discussed the specifics of my job on the forum in the past but try not to any more, sorry. It's a good job in the television/entertainment industry (no not selling them, though I have in the past), and I've had it as a staff position for over 14 years not counting the time I've spent freelancing for the same company. But I've had my share of low paying jobs, menial jobs, sales jobs, door to door jobs, where taking a day off sick meant losing a day's pay. And I've not forgotten what it's like to have 2 or 3 or 4 roommates to afford the rent, freezing McD's hamburgers in the work fridge during .25 Mondays so I could more easily afford dinner the next couple of nights since I wouldn't be home to cook a cheap spaghetti dinner, blah blah blah.

When I started freelancing at this job, I worked pretty much every single day for 2.5 years, because this job paid well but it was of course freelance, no benefits. So Tue-Thu, I'd freelance, and Fri-Mon I'd work 10 hour shifts at a customer service job that didn't have good pay but I got benefits. I know what it's like to get a shot at a good job and busting your butt to earn your place to keep it. But that's it. I recognize that I GOT A SHOT. I think a lot of people on this thread don't recognize that someone somewhere gave them a shot, that somehow miraculously they "made it" all on their own and therefore anyone can do it, which I find oh so much hogwash. I recognize that many business owners make a living on the margins and it can be scary when anything threatens that. And I know I can seem harsh with my opinions, but I still maintain that there should be dignity with every job, no matter how much it makes your hands dirty, or how much it makes your hands bleed, if it's honest work it's good work. And someone willing to do a job should at least be able to keep the rent paid and the shelves stocked. And more and more, people are slipping through those cracks. Many of our nation's poor are WORKING POOR, not just "takers" as some insist, not lazy because they don't work, or lazy because they work but they don't work with an eye towards becoming middle management or franchisee. And it just really rubs me the wrong way that people can work and be poor, for moral AND for selfish reasons, because now my taxes and your taxes have to go to subsidize a worker's pay because perhaps their employer doesn't want to pay them, even if they're profitable enough to do so.

 

[flynnibus]

That explains why you always see one union/government worker digging a ditch and 10 others standing around watching him. Obviously, these are workers who receive over-time regardless of production. So by mandating over-time, the government in essence is decreasing production, right? What a person could do in 8 hours will now be completed in 10 or so. Again, this is an example of rewarding those for failure and punishing those who achieve success. Socialism 101.

That line of thought makes no sense what so ever.

Mandating paying for overtime does not mean the employees get to dictate how long they work - only that an employer pay the person more if they require them to be on the job beyond a certain threshold.

Worker efficiency if anything would be likely be increased because employers are more motivated to get work completed within a set time to AVOID paying overtime, hence driving their employees harder.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

That explains why you always see one union/government worker digging a ditch and 10 others standing around watching him. Obviously, these are workers who receive over-time regardless of production. So by mandating over-time, the government in essence is decreasing production, right? What a person could do in 8 hours will now be completed in 10 or so. Again, this is an example of rewarding those for failure and punishing those who achieve success. Socialism 101.

Actually the failure here is the office/management not properly supervising the work, the on site supervision standing around, all higher or highly paid not doing thier jobs. The few digging the ditch..........at a very low rate are the ones getting hurt and not able to feed their families.....sadly todays Capitalism 101!

 

[lazyboy97o]

And I know I can seem harsh with my opinions, but I still maintain that there should be dignity with every job, no matter how much it makes your hands dirty, or how much it makes your hands bleed, if it's honest work it's good work.

There is no way I believe my first job is worth anything close to $25/hour. The training took less than a minute. I handed people the size they requested, if they needed larger or smaller, I got that. When they were done, I did the opposite. There is a need for that job at places like bowling alleys and skating rinks, but I never thought it was worth more than the minimum wage it paid.

 

[Cubfan300]

I honestly believe that there are many in this country, from the poorest of the poor to the filthy rich and every economic strata in between, that experience real confusion between wants and needs. I always wanted to make a living that allowed me the finer things in life and time for a vacation or two at Disney. But, I needed a roof over my head and food in my belly first. I wanted to have a wife and children, but needed to make sure that my education and career were on their way first. I wanted a cell phone and cable, but needed a hard line and an antenna. I wanted a new car, but needed a beater to get me back and forth to work.
I knew that my needs outweighed my wants and that with time and hard work, the wants would soon be satisified. I wonder how many of our nation's "poor" (poor to me conjures up images of cardboard homes in Haiti or Africa) satisfy their wants ahead of their needs and find themselves stuck in the same minimum wage jobs that never let them escape poverty? Better still, I wonder how many of this nation's poor have their needs barely satisified by the government and spend what little they have left on their wants?
I guess it boils down to the question...do you want to be self-sufficient and strive for the American Dream, to have a better life than your parents, or are you satisified with a subsistance living where the government provides just enough for your survival and you really only need to contribute the bare minimum to achieve that? I know far too many people that choose the latter because the former is just too darn hard.
I have to say, I really do feel awful having this conversation on a Disney Fan site...this really is something that has much more validity on a social media or news site. This will be my last contribution to this thread. Need some pixie dust right about now.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

The few digging the ditch..........at a very low rate are the ones getting hurt and not able to feed their families.....sadly todays Capitalism 101!

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

 

[wm49rs]

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

Lovely, another judgmental prat adding nothing but hyperbole to the conversation. What are the odds?





Ok, pretty good, I'll grant you....

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

You are making a judgment that is proven wrong by the fact the people are working and will be looking to raise their standard of living. Whether that is by more hours, education or just will power to do better.

The ones who are on the Dole now will not work harder and their is nothing we can do about it.

I don't see how its fair to drive the folks that are working into welfare by not providing them with a fair wage.

We either pay the bill by minor higher prices (and if you look around prices and company bottom lines are doing much better, yet the pay isn't going to any of the folks working in the lower pay scales) or we pay for more on welfare.


AKK

 

[CDavid]

There is no way I believe my first job is worth anything close to $25/hour. The training took less than a minute. I handed people the size they requested, if they needed larger or smaller, I got that. When they were done, I did the opposite. There is a need for that job at places like bowling alleys and skating rinks, but I never thought it was worth more than the minimum wage it paid.

No, very few minimum wage jobs are worth $25/hour, but then nobody should be seriously suggesting a minimum wage anywhere close to that. All jobs are worth the prevailing minimum, and periodic and reasonable increases in that minimum are necessary and appropriate. At the time of my first job the minimum was just $3.35; Nobody would work for that wage today, nor should they. Anywhere from $10 to $15 has been more commonly thrown around, which may be more or less reasonable depending on the pace of increases, the economy, and obviously the political horse trading required to determine the actual wage amount.

However, while some jobs (like handing out shoes, taking out the trash, etc.) may not be worth much in themselves, it may be a necessary position in order for the business to function or provide better customer service. It may be better to overpay (within reason) for someone to take out the restaurant garbage rather than have to staff an extra wait-staff position or have the manager or chef have to deal with the distraction from their other responsibilities.

Of course, give inflation enough time, and the minimum wage will indeed exceed $25, but right now, we need more appropriate increases, perhaps combined with other policy changes (less expensive housing, etc.).

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

An appropriately raised minimum wage will actually reduce eligibility for food stamps, section 8, and other programs. People who currently qualify will be earning a bit more of their own money, while receiving a bit less public assistance. In theory, it comes out of your or my pocket either way (no free lunch) through either taxes or (slightly) higher retail prices, but I think most of us would agree it is preferable for a person to be able to earn their own way than depend on handouts.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Lovely, another judgmental prat adding nothing but hyperbole to the conversation. What are the odds?





Ok, pretty good, I'll grant you....

Yeah they are flying out of the woodwork, man, and that last one was a particularly repulsive post. Just, wow.

 

[slappy magoo]

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

First, you shouldn't assume a minimum wage job isn't "hard work."
Second of all, you're contradicting yourself. You're essentially saying "some people have no incentive to work hard...and if you give them a raise, why, then they'll have no incentive to work hard!"
Third, many people getting federal aid are also working. That's why they're called "the working poor."
Fourth, the Harder you're working a job to pay the bills, the less time you have to achieve higher education. Again, a contradiction. I don't begrudge anyone who's working full-time AND trying to get an education, but I also think getting paid for that work at a rate that you can support yourself is not a bad thing. Otherwise "needs" take place of "wants" and you drop out of school to get a second job.

other than that, a spot-on assessment and I'm sure your newsletter will sell like gangbusters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, very few minimum wage jobs are worth $25/hour, but then nobody should be seriously suggesting a minimum wage anywhere close to that. All jobs are worth the prevailing minimum, and periodic and reasonable increases in that minimum are necessary and appropriate. At the time of my first job the minimum was just $3.35; Nobody would work for that wage today, nor should they. Anywhere from $10 to $15 has been more commonly thrown around, which may be more or less reasonable depending on the pace of increases, the economy, and obviously the political horse trading required to determine the actual wage amount.

However, while some jobs (like handing out shoes, taking out the trash, etc.) may not be worth much in themselves, it may be a necessary position in order for the business to function or provide better customer service. It may be better to overpay (within reason) for someone to take out the restaurant garbage rather than have to staff an extra wait-staff position or have the manager or chef have to deal with the distraction from their other responsibilities.

The $25/hour figure comes from my discussion with sloppy magoo, who described a living wage as one sufficient for a single earner to support a family of four without assistance except for those relating to health insurance assistance provided under the Affordable Care Act. That level means one needs to earn roughly 200% of the federal poverty guideline for a family of four. This number is supported by the MIT Living Wage Calculator. If you explore various areas, even $25/hour is insufficient for a single parent of three.

An appropriately raised minimum wage will actually reduce eligibility for food stamps, section 8, and other programs. People who currently qualify will be earning a bit more of their own money, while receiving a bit less public assistance. In theory, it comes out of your or my pocket either way (no free lunch) through either taxes or (slightly) higher retail prices, but I think most of us would agree it is preferable for a person to be able to earn their own way than depend on handouts.

The reason assistance has become the preferred method for handling poverty is because the costs can be directed through tax policy. There are few 1%ers eating at a McDonald's in a poor neighborhood. Despite McDonald's corporate profits, these are not reflective of how well individual franchises operate. This means the higher prices are being paid by the very poor the higher wages are supposed to support. And while it would be better to end how much the poor depend on fast food, that will not happen with price increases. Poor neighborhoods often lack grocery stores. Killing the fast food restaurants and convenience stores that are in these areas might push more people to the grocery stores but that means the poor are now paying the new higher prices plus the costs of travel, which are higher because they live further away.

 

[wm49rs]

First, you shouldn't assume a minimum wage job isn't "hard work."
Second of all, you're contradicting yourself. You're essentially saying "some people have no incentive to work hard...and if you give them a raise, why, then they'll have no incentive to work hard!"
Third, many people getting federal aid are also working. That's why they're called "the working poor."
Fourth, the Harder you're working a job to pay the bills, the less time you have to achieve higher education. Again, a contradiction. I don't begrudge anyone who's working full-time AND trying to get an education, but I also think getting paid for that work at a rate that you can support yourself is not a bad thing. Otherwise "needs" take place of "wants" and you drop out of school to get a second job.

other than that, a spot-on assessment and I'm sure your newsletter will sell like gangbusters.

I'm sure he has two subscribers already.

Or, maybe just one for all....

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

You're essentially saying "some people have no incentive to work hard...and if you give them a raise, why, then they'll have no incentive to work hard!"

I didn't say that at all. Let's try this; you have a guy on welfare, section 8, food stamps and now Obamacare - all paid by us. Now, this leech has no incentive to go out and get a job to support himself, does he? However, if you pull this leech from the host (us hard-working taxpayers) and provide him no housing, food, etc.., I will guarantee that this parasite will get off his butt and do something to survive. The same applies to the minimum wage worker but not as severe.

 

[wm49rs]

I didn't say that at all. Let's try this; you have a guy on welfare, section 8, food stamps and now Obamacare - all paid by us. Now, this leech has no incentive to go out and get a job to support himself, does he? However, if you pull this leech from the host (us hard-working taxpayers) and provide him no housing, food, etc.., I will guarantee that this parasite will get off his butt and do something to survive.

The only thing you can guarantee is your ongoing judgments. Which sounds more than vaguely familiar to someone else....

 

[GoofGoof]

Ok, so we raise the minimum wage and guarantee a minimum standard of comfortable living. This only reduces the desire of the poorest people to work harder, get a higher education and innovate. Look at those on welfare, section 8 and food stamps (and now free healthcare). What incentive is there to work hard when they can be parasites and live off those who are diligent?

This is backwards. You are mixing up welfare with minimum wage. I agree with you that increasing welfare and paying people more to NOT work is a bad solution. Raising minimum wage isn't going to make more people go on welfare. If anything there could be some people that would come off. Right now if you are collecting all the government handouts you mentioned what incentive is there to get a job making $7.25 an hour when you can make more sitting home. If you can make $10 or $15 an hour maybe that makes it worth giving up your federal benefits. This applies to a small percentage of people on government assistance, but it's still some.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not implying that raising minimum wage would somehow wipe out the welfare system and result in no unemployment. That's not realistic either. There could very well be a temporary decrease in available minimum wage jobs if some employers cut back resulting in an increase in unemployment, but historically minimum wage increases didn't result in large swings either way.

 

[GoofGoof]

I didn't say that at all. Let's try this; you have a guy on welfare, section 8, food stamps and now Obamacare - all paid by us. Now, this leech has no incentive to go out and get a job to support himself, does he? However, if you pull this leech from the host (us hard-working taxpayers) and provide him no housing, food, etc.., I will guarantee that this parasite will get off his butt and do something to survive. The same applies to the minimum wage worker but not as severe.

How does the same apply to a minimum wage worker? They are already doing something to survive, working a job. Don't you think someone who makes $7.25 an hour working 40 hours a week would take a similar job paying $12 or $15 or $20 per hour if it existed? Suddenly by removing the minimum wage these people will be "motivated" to seek better employment.

 

[Preston Chatsworth]

but historically minimum wage increases didn't result in large swings either way.

Exactly. This talk of increasing the minimum wage during a time in which the economy is weak and small business is on the brink is suicidal. If you push the largest employer in the nation (the small business owner) too far, he will close shop and then where will we be? You would think that our illustrious leader would first get the economy going to where the small business owner was making a substantial profit before hitting them up for these wage increases but when you never had a real job in your life, I guess this is par for the course.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. This talk of increasing the minimum wage during a time in which the economy is weak and small business is on the brink is suicidal. If you push the largest employer in the nation (the small business owner) too far, he will close shop and then where will we be? You would think that our illustrious leader would first get the economy going to where the small business owner was making a substantial profit before hitting them up for these wage increases but when you never had a real job in your life, I guess this is par for the course.

Is there some historic precedent that shows that increases in minimum wage lead to small businesses going bankrupt? Another way to look at it is if your business is so close to bankruptcy that you can't absorb a modest increase in minimum wage then maybe the business is just a failure. Plenty of small businesses fail and go bankrupt every day without increases in wages.