Thoughts on $15 hour minimum wage in US?

[Hammster]

Because $15 is supposed to be the minimum wage, not the average wage.

Why not 20?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why not 20?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

You're welcome to put the case for $20 before the wage deciding authority. $40 would be good.

 

[Hammster]

You're welcome to put the case for $20 before the wage deciding authority. $40 would be good.

So why not 100? These companies all apparently just print their own money.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Josiah]

Is it working? Should it be working? If no, then what would work better?

1. Why doesn't the government set the minimum wage at $100.00 per hour? THAT would increase the income of lots of people (including me) and give them a living wage. IF you find that absurd, then much the same arguments would seem to apply to any other number put there.

2. I STRONGLY hold (rather passionately) that ALL work is ministry, ALL work is important, and I was raised to respect ALL workers - no matter what their wage may be or title may be. And that's important to me in terms of respect. But truth is, not all work has the same FINANCIAL, ECONOMIC worth.

3. I had a min. wage job once - when I was a teen. I learned much from that - but above all, I learned to NOT STAY THERE but to do all I could, as fast as I could, to improve myself, advance myself. Today, I'm 27, I have a Ph.D., and I make several times minimum wage. I want to RESPECT that one slinging burgers in ministry to me.... but I also want to encourage him/her to reach for all he/she can be for the Lord and us. I stayed in my minimum wage job for 3 months - seems like a max to me, lol.

I don't think like a liberal, lol.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Every year when my company sends out our W-2s (the form we use that shows out wages for the for tax filing purposes), they include an extra sheet that shows what it costs to employ us. Things from state and federal taxes, insurance, etc. are included. It always comes out to about 25000 more than I make. This is the "income" I earn that I don't actually see. This doesn't include paying wages for the non-producing (support) personnel, equipment, parts, repairs, etc.

There's more to running a company than just paying someone their wages.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

I only recently found out how much my employer pays for my health insurance..... I WAS SHOCKED.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So why not 100? These companies all apparently just print their own money.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

The amount on the table is $15 per hour. I can't help but think that the other amounts your posts mention are just a distraction.

 

[tango]

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.

The trouble with a minimum wage, regardless of the level, is that if someone is unable to add enough value to business operations to justify being paid the minimum wage they end up condemned to a life of unemployment.

Sadly the people so condemned are generally the ones at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, perhaps people who are mentally or physically disabled to a degree that makes it hard for them to add a lot of financial value but not so much so that they are incapable of working. Maybe people who are slow learners who can add value to a business but not enough to justify paying them a mandatory $X/hour. Maybe in time they would be worth $X/hour but while they are learning the ropes they might only be worth half that.

It's funny really, if the government steps in and imposes a minimum price on something the people buy regularly it's typically opposed but as soon as the same government steps in and imposes a minimum price on something else people are all for it. It's little more than a case of double standards - if we're buying we want the price to be pushed down by competition but if we're selling we like the idea of the government artificially supporting the price. It only breaks when we're selling and the artificially mandated price is more than anyone is willing to pay, with the result that we can't find a buyer and don't even have the legal freedom to drop the price so that we can.

 

[tango]

You're welcome to put the case for $20 before the wage deciding authority. $40 would be good.

$40 would be catastrophic.

What happens to the sticker prices of everything from a box of cornflakes to a burger if the cost of hiring people more than triples? It's not even as if it's just the visible staff that make the difference - if a store like Wal-Mart suddenly has to pay many times the price to hire someone to clean the floors and stack the shelves what do you suppose they will do to their prices?

If people currently on $10/hour are suddenly entitled to $40/hour, what about the people currently making $15, $20, $30? Do you think they will be satisfied to move from making double minimum wage to making minimum wage?

If wages increase and prices increase correspondingly, effectively all you've done is devalue the currency. You might as well just print an extra 0 on the end of all the cash in circulation and an extra 0 on everybody's wage.

Too bad if you're on a fixed income. It would really stitch up pensioners who can't go back to work and who find that minimum wage jumped, prices jumped in response, but their pension stayed the same.

 

[king of the unknown]

The problem isn't how much you make or not make it is the how much you are getting paid for the work you do. Let me explain: A company gains money based on what the employees do. That means that for every action a employee or employer makes for the company is benefiting the company but what percentage of the profit should go to the company, the employees, and the employer. The problem is that the employers are in control of the percentage meaning they will always give themselves more and more. As long as an employer have control what stops them from pushing down the percentage of money in conjunction with work done. Companies will always push more profits no matter what minimum wage is. Change is sometimes the excuse companies need to push profits higher and to push expenses down including but not limited to the employees.

 

[Ruth]

They already do provide for work that profits them. And we should have no minimum wage. I seem to be doing fine without it.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

And you want workers who work for $0 an hour?

 

[psalms 91]

They already do provide for work that profits them. And we should have no minimum wage. I seem to be doing fine without it.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

And of course unions were formed because the employers treated their workers fairly, right?

 

[tango]

And you want workers who work for $0 an hour?

With respect, that's little more than an emotive argument that has little basis in reality.

If you and I are going for the same job the company will hire whichever one of us represents the better value proposition.

Let's say for the sake of the example that you've got more experience doing the job, and so on the face of it you're the better candidate. If I want the job I need to make myself more attractive to the employer. One way I might do this is by being willing to work for less money, so they get someone who maybe isn't as good but is cheaper, and being cheaper might tip the balance in my favor. As soon as the government bans me from dropping the price below a certain level, they take away the only competitive advantage I have in the situation.

I realise that some companies will look to exploit workers by pitting them against one another to see who will do the work for the lowest possible amount of money. There is merit in that concern but it only goes so far. Once the wage drops below a certain level people won't work because it's not worth their while showing up to work at all (or the company will end up with a stream of "workers" who just don't show up because for the sake of $10 for a day's work they would rather sit in the sun). And, of course, once a worker has a skill that is in demand they can demand a higher price because they have something to offer that the rest of the pack doesn't have. That's why lawyers and accountants earn more than street sweepers and burger flippers.

We'd notice the street sweepers going on strike long before we noticed lawyers going on strike but the simple fact is that just about anyone reasonably able-bodied can sweep the streets but it takes years of training to become a lawyer and most people either can't or won't undertake that level of study.

 

[Hammster]

And of course unions were formed because the employers treated their workers fairly, right?

I'm not union. And I make a fair living.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

And you want workers who work for $0 an hour?

No. A company could not stay in business that way.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

The amount on the table is $15 per hour. I can't help but think that the other amounts your posts mention are just a distraction.

No. 15 is just as arbitrary a number as 100. You obviously think that all companies can magically afford 15. So why can't they magically afford 100?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

If you truly want it to be fair your way then workers would hire on with no fixed amount but would know that their hard work would share in the profits and be paid according to what the company made but that will not happen as then companies could not make the money they do. Like it or not workers need protection, especially in this day and age where companies only care about profit margin and looking good to the stockholders

 

[tango]

If you truly want it to be fair your way then workers would hire on with no fixed amount but would know that their hard work would share in the profits and be paid according to what the company made but that will not happen as then companies could not make the money they do. Like it or not workers need protection, especially in this day and age where companies only care about profit margin and looking good to the stockholders

If the workers were to be paid, say, 50% of the value they add to the corporation then some would do well and some would do badly. Then there would be cries of how unfair it all was and demands that the productive workers were somehow hogging the good pay leaving the others to rot.

The problem with anything that looks like "worker protection" is that it's easy to sell to the masses but usually ends up hurting the very people it purports to help. The people who can only ever add $5/hour of value to a business are permanently excluded from the workforce the minute companies are mandated to pay them more than $5/hour. Whether their limitations are permanent or temporary is irrelevant - if someone can only add $5/hour of value while they learn but once they are trained they can add $12/hour of value, the chances of a company paying them $10/hour while they learn are slim. The company would want protection from the chances of paying over the odds, paying for training, and then seeing the worker leave.

 

[MoreCoffee]

$40 would be catastrophic.

What happens to the sticker prices of everything from a box of cornflakes to a burger if the cost of hiring people more than triples? It's not even as if it's just the visible staff that make the difference - if a store like Wal-Mart suddenly has to pay many times the price to hire someone to clean the floors and stack the shelves what do you suppose they will do to their prices?

If people currently on $10/hour are suddenly entitled to $40/hour, what about the people currently making $15, $20, $30? Do you think they will be satisfied to move from making double minimum wage to making minimum wage?

If wages increase and prices increase correspondingly, effectively all you've done is devalue the currency. You might as well just print an extra 0 on the end of all the cash in circulation and an extra 0 on everybody's wage.

Too bad if you're on a fixed income. It would really stitch up pensioners who can't go back to work and who find that minimum wage jumped, prices jumped in response, but their pension stayed the same.

If your economy depends on paying people poorly then it is in need to correction. $15/hour is low. $40/hour would be good. If some prices increased the increase due to wages would be fairly low since wages usually comprise a small proportion of the cost of goods.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. 15 is just as arbitrary a number as 100. You obviously think that all companies can magically afford 15. So why can't they magically afford 100?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

I am sure that $15/hour as the minimum wage is based on a whole lot more than a mere arbitrary whim. IN Australia minimum wages are set by a tribunal which hears the case for various levels of increase and decides on the evidence presented by the interested parties. It is a public hearing and the evidence is open to public scrutiny. My guess is that the USA states make their decisions in a similar way.

sent from my keyboard using my fingers and thumbs.

 

[tango]

If your economy depends on paying people poorly then it is in need to correction. $15/hour is low. $40/hour would be good. If some prices increased the increase due to wages would be fairly low since wages usually comprise a small proportion of the cost of goods.

Direct wages may be a relatively small cost (although that would depend on the business in question). Other costs would also increase - anything contracted out to another company would increase because of their increased costs. Raw materials would increase because workers there would need a raise.

If $40/hour would be good, why wouldn't $100/hour be better and $1000/hour be better still? If all you're doing is throwing more money around the net effect is simply to devalue the currency. Anyone can stick another zero on the end of all the numbers, and all it does is make the numbers bigger without making anybody any better off at all.

An economy that depends on paying people low wages isn't good, but on the flipside why should someone who could be replaced by any random person walking past on the street because they have no skills of any note at all be paid a lot of money? The more people have to be paid the more likely it is that the more menial tasks will be done by machine, condemning the people who once did the job to a lifetime of unemployment.