Thoughts on $15 hour minimum wage in US?

[king of the unknown]

That didn't answer the question. What makes you think it's the responsibility of a company to provide essentials?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Companies don't have to do anything but they choose to do what they think will be most profitable for them. Oddly enough not killing your employes improves productivity.

When you use the term responsibility you run into one big problem, what is a company actually responsible for at all. The simple answer is anything they say they are responsible for. Of course you also have to take into account what laws say they are responsible for as well.

But that is just dealing with the legal stuff. Many people would say that companies should have social or moral responsibilities and in many cases companiesdto follow these "good company" policies. There is a difference between a company's responsibilities and actions a company takes because they make the company look better. There is a lot of grey area and opinions about responsibilities of companies

 

[psalms 91]

That didn't answer the question. What makes you think it's the responsibility of a company to provide essentials?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

What you quoted, it did answer why they should be made to provide a living wage

 

[Hammster]

What you quoted, it did answer why they should be made to provide a living wage

Sorry, but it didn't. You said what you thought they should do. But not what they are responsible to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Companies don't have to do anything but they choose to do what they think will be most profitable for them. Oddly enough not killing your employes improves productivity.

When you use the term responsibility you run into one big problem, what is a company actually responsible for at all. The simple answer is anything they say they are responsible for. Of course you also have to take into account what laws say they are responsible for as well.

But that is just dealing with the legal stuff. Many people would say that companies should have social or moral responsibilities and in many cases companiesdto follow these "good company" policies. There is a difference between a company's responsibilities and actions a company takes because they make the company look better. There is a lot of grey area and opinions about responsibilities of companies

That's pretty close to the truth. Companies are in business to make money. They need to pay employees. They obviously cannot pay employees 100 an hour minimum. But they cannot also pay them nothing. So they work out what wage will bring in people for the job. Some jobs are more skilled, or require experience. So to attract those people, they offer to pay them whatever it will take to keep them. That's how these things work.

If one company treats its workers better than another, it's simply because they think it's good business. If the other company starts losing workers, then they will be forced to change their policies to attract better workers.

That's how these things are supposed to work.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

Sorry, but it didn't. You said what you thought they should do. But not what they are responsible to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

They nare responsible to follow the law which minimum wage will do. Hard to make a point if it isnt understood clearly I guess, Law creates responsibility I thought that was clear

 

[Hammster]

They nare responsible to follow the law which minimum wage will do. Hard to make a point if it isnt understood clearly I guess, Law creates responsibility I thought that was clear

Of course they are responsible to follow the law. smh

What if there was no minimum wage? Why would they be responsible to provide a living wage?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, it's not. A business decides what each job is worth. Once someone comes in and says that it should be more than that, it's free money.

And I'm still waiting to hear why 100 an hour isn't better.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

That's not so; an employee, an employer, and the civil authority decide what is to be paid

 

[Josiah]

The minimum wage in Australia is over $16/hour and our country works well. I don't see why $15/hour is so contentious for the USA.

$16.00 Australian equals $11.84 US. And I don't think in Australia there is the 9.5% FICA, the unemployment, disability, etc. which the employer also pays for the employee albeit to the government directly. Thus, you are not comparing apples to apples, the min. wage you are defending is probably closer to $10.00 per hour US, even if there are no other benefits.

 

[Hammster]

That's not so; an employee, an employer, and the civil authority decide what is to be paid

I guess you missed my point.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Josiah]

I don't think any OWES anyone the money ANY thinks is good.... But then I'm not an uber communist.

I don't think an employer is to GIVE to someone as that someone feels they NEED..... I think asking an employer to grant more than what is earned is stealing from that employer and violates The Big Ten.

I think an employer must respond according to work provided.... his/her productivity, according to what that work contributed to the organization. NOT simply because that person exists and wants to drive a new car or have a nice home or.....

I think society should ENCOURAGE and EMPOWER people to be and do all they can..... not reward them for the minimum they feel like doing. I appreciated my min. wage job - but above all, I'm thankful for how it encouraged me to LEAVE and pursue more in terms of what I could do. I'm all in favor of job training, assistance with tuition, etc. as it empowers people to move up.... I'm not in favor of rewarding people for doing as little as possible.

Yes, there are those who can do little, perhaps because of some disability. CARING for those who cannot care for themselves, however, is OUR responsibility as a society and should not be handed off to the couple owning the cleaners or donut shop, struggling in their small business to make a go of it, struggling to provide for themselves, by forcing them to pay WAY more than the productivity of the work suggest. Sure, there are those working 60, 80 hours a week at some $8.00 per hour job because they are ABLE to do nothing that is more productive to the employer - I know that - but WE need to help those people, that reality is not the responsibility of the man who owns the carpet cleaning company who hired him to help.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I guess you missed my point.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Probably not. What is obvious is that money is in itself a government thing. The USD is not a private arrangement. Nobody pays in gold or silver unless it's a very unusual (and possibly illegal) transaction. So the government is involved and there's nothing wrong with the law of the land applying to an employer employee arrangement. Contract law is, after all, resolved in the courts when the contract is disputed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think any OWES anyone the money ANY thinks is good.... But then I'm not an uber communist.

I don't think an employer is to GIVE to someone as that someone feels they NEED..... I think asking an employer to grant more than what is earned is stealing from that employer and violates The Big Ten.

Who decides what is earned? When there's a dispute who arbitrates the dispute? Even in pre-kingship Israel the elders at the gates would decide cases and when the matter was too difficult for them then it was referred to the priests and the high priest all of which sounds very similar to the kind of system that appertains to the courts today. If all work were done on an agreed price basis with contracts that could be tested before the courts then I doubt that sub $15/hour in 2015 would happen often except for children doing 'work'.

I think an employer must respond according to work provided.... his/her productivity, according to what that work contributed to the organization. NOT simply because that person exists and wants to drive a new car or have a nice home or.....

"I think" isn't the matter under dispute. What's being disputed is what is happening in the USA today with the court and employment systems that appertains to the USA in 2015. Personal opinions are fine but they do not matter before a court. It's evidence and reasoned argument that counts. For the argument from productivity see my reply to the first paragraph of your post above.

I think society should ENCOURAGE and EMPOWER people to be and do all they can..... not reward them for the minimum they feel like doing. I appreciated my min. wage job - but above all, I'm thankful for how it encouraged me to LEAVE and pursue more in terms of what I could do. I'm all in favor of job training, assistance with tuition, etc. as it empowers people to move up.... I'm not in favor of rewarding people for doing as little as possible.

Yes, there are those who can do little, perhaps because of some disability. CARING for those who cannot care for themselves, however, is OUR responsibility as a society and should not be handed off to the couple owning the cleaners or donut shop, struggling in their small business to make a go of it, struggling to provide for themselves, by forcing them to pay WAY more than the productivity of the work suggest. Sure, there are those working 60, 80 hours a week at some $8.00 per hour job because they are ABLE to do nothing that is more productive to the employer - I know that - but WE need to help those people, that reality is not the responsibility of the man who owns the carpet cleaning company who hired him to help.

- Josiah

One cannot help but notice that all of your post's argument is couched in terms of the employer having an inherent right to decide who get how much in payment for work. Of course such an arrangement applied in previous centuries to the labourers, surfs, and slaves of those centuries. A return to such arrangement may seem desirable to some but it doesn't stand much of a chance if brought before the nation in an election.

 

[dogs4thewin]

My thoughts are that that wage is way too high. The minimum wage is meant for those people just starting out with very few skills. It is not meant to be where you want to stay.

 

[Forgiven1]

I am one who currently earns more than double the minimum wage. I had to go to school as well as get a license in order to do what I do. If the minimum wage were to more than double, I think my wage should also more than double. This is the thinking of many in my profession.

With this happening, goods and services will increase greatly so you are only inflating costs of everything and no one gains anything with this type of increase.

 

[psalms 91]

I am one who currently earns more than double the minimum wage. I had to go to school as well as get a license in order to do what I do. If the minimum wage were to more than double, I think my wage should also more than double. This is the thinking of many in my profession.

With this happening, goods and services will increase greatly so you are only inflating costs of everything and no one gains anything with this type of increase.

This line of reasoning has foretold disaster every time the minimum wage was raised and in the end all it did was help out people struggling to get by

 

[Josiah]

And for all those struggling, who may not have access or opportunity or even intelligence for college? In a country like this I think minimum wage should reflect a standard of living that is at least able to buy food, clothes and shelter. If you work that should be the least that you should expect.

Those who CANNOT do more, such is the responsibility of ALL of us - not exclusively the couple that is trying to make a "go" of their carpet cleaning business or donut shop; society helps those who cannot help themselves.

And I am VERY much in favor of supporting those who are striving to do more (and willing to make the sacrifices that always includes)... help with training, etc. But again, that's OUR responsibility - not that of small business owners or those barely making a go of their business as it is. I was BLESSED with scholarships, loans, etc. as I pursued my undergraduate and graduate degrees - and I am very, very thankful for that support and now eager to extend that to others. But I don't push that off on the man and wife who just opened their house painting business, suggesting that couple (rather than society) empower that. The one who doesn't want to do (and thus earn) more, who is not willing to do what is necessary to advance..... should be left to his/her choice (if they want to complain to the one they see in the mirror, so be it).

Wages are based on the market, they should reflect productivity and what that work contributes to the profit of the company.... they are employees. Their employer is an employer, is not a welfare agency.

Yes, I'm a Republican



Pax



- Josiah

 

[dogs4thewin]

I am one who currently earns more than double the minimum wage. I had to go to school as well as get a license in order to do what I do. If the minimum wage were to more than double, I think my wage should also more than double. This is the thinking of many in my profession.

With this happening, goods and services will increase greatly so you are only inflating costs of everything and no one gains anything with this type of increase.

Thank you. If employers must pay their employees more then they either must let people go and/or raise prices so they can still make a profit. In this way, you end up in the same position because the people who are making minimum wage are the only ones who know their wage will increase.

 

[tango]

This line of reasoning has foretold disaster every time the minimum wage was raised and in the end all it did was help out people struggling to get by

Of course it helps, for a while. That's what inflation does.

In the early stages it looks great because there's more money floating about and everybody feels good. Everybody benefits and nobody pays. If it really takes off the market soaks up the extra cash by marking up the price, with the result that everybody pays and nobody benefits.

It's pretty obvious that if the people currently making $8/hour get a raise to $15/hour then the people currently on $12/hour aren't going to be happy if they end up on $15/hour as well. Who can possibly be excited about going from 150% of minimum wage to 100% of minimum wage - it's effectively a 33% pay cut overnight. When prices rise to soak up the extra cash floating about those latter people find just what a great idea it wasn't.