Jump to content

Menu

S/O What wage would you set for min wage?


Recommended Posts

I do not remember that happening in this nation during the Great Depression, not for that matter in the UK. If you would speak of the present how about an example of a nation that has a tradition of law and freedom to make your example? I am afraid Africa and Afghanistan simply do not cut it if you are trying to make comparison to the US.

 

How about New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The local economy collapsed even just temporarily and it took martial law to restore order. They came from our nation with a tradition of law and freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If the option simply wasn't there to buy these cheap goods, the world would be better off. .

 

No the Third World would collapse, jobs that keep people alive would disappear and the US might be better off as jobs would return to this nation.

 

If I had to pay an employee $8/hr in Senegal and then transport the goods to the US or pay an employee in the US $10/hr I might bring the job home. The rest of the world would sink a little further.....

 

Of course the tee shirt would then cost $20 and we would have fewer plastic gee gaws at Christmas (which would not be a bad thing) but you would have destroyed the economies of many nations and caused misery on a huge scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! The migrant workers are here illegally! Why should our government protect them when they should be deporting them? If the migrant workers were not available to work, the businesses would have to deal with a more savvy (hopefully) workforce.

 

In a truly free market, even the worker is free to choose where he/she will work, live, study, etc. And *that* freedom would police the bad guys.

 

If it was more than a slap on the wrist then maybe the company would not feel compelled to *bus in* illegal migrants.

 

Your "truly free market" sounds like a fantasy. All people would not have the same access to the same businesses. If I had fifty places near me to choose between who was looking for employees then that would be one thing, but that isn't generally reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With few exceptions, 18 year olds can enter into contracts, marry without permission, vote, serve in the military. Drinking and gambling are restricted, though almost every state allows 18 year olds to buy lottery tickets.

 

But to me, the key point is that at 18, most states do not require any support from parents. Parents are generally no long liable for the actions of their children after that age, and in most states, can not be required to provide financial support.

 

So to me, reducing the minimum wage for people in that age group puts them between a rock and a hard spot. They are not entitled to live with their parents, not entitled to be on their insurance (if the parents refuse), not entitled to eat their food. Parents can show them the door at that age if they please. But if they can't make enough to support themselves, they are in real trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the Third World would collapse, jobs that keep people alive would disappear and the US might be better off as jobs would return to this nation.

 

If I had to pay an employee $8/hr in Senegal and then transport the goods to the US or pay an employee in the US $10/hr I might bring the job home. The rest of the world would sink a little further.....

 

Of course the tee shirt would then cost $20 and we would have fewer plastic gee gaws at Christmas (which would not be a bad thing) but you would have destroyed the economies of many nations and caused misery on a huge scale.

 

At what point though do we need to take a hard look at the internal misery though?

 

Entire towns are disappearing because the plant they grew around has gone.

 

There isn't a single pair of blue jeans made in the US.

 

It isn't only manufacturing jobs anymore though now many tech jobs are leaving the US, one doesn't have to ship any junk with those.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The economy did not collapse during the Great Depression. Government and the New Deal stepped in and provided aid, provided jobs and started one of the greatest economic booms of US history. That's what stopped the US from sliding into chaos similar to other failed nations.

 

 

It did not collapse, really?

 

It started in 1929 and the "New deal" only started to be implemented in 1933 so what happened during the intervening years?

 

-750,000 farmers declared bankruptcy.

-Nearly 50% of the children of the great depression did not have adequate food, shelter, or medical care.

-The great depression unemployment rate reached 24.9% Toledo, Ohio got hit especially hard and reached an unemployment rate of 80%

 

What stopped the US sliding into chaos was arguably WWII and huge sales of armaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At what point though do we need to take a hard look at the internal misery though?

 

Entire towns are disappearing because the plant they grew around has gone.

 

There isn't a single pair of blue jeans made in the US.

 

...I agree, I am not necessarily opposed to tariffs to introduce a degree of competitiveness for the US worker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. I pointed out that not all migrants are illegal immigrants because it is a very common misconception.

 

I am not anti-immigrant, I don't care who is here legally and who is not, my people have been here thousands of years and that doesn't make any difference in whether or not I "deserve" to be here than my dh whose family has only been here for a couple generations. I just want people to be treated well and justly.

 

I don't really believe that the person who is a migrant legally would be treated any better than the migrant who is not. It is a sad state of affairs. :(

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The local economy collapsed even just temporarily and it took martial law to restore order. They came from our nation with a tradition of law and freedom.

 

 

One city does not always a country make, the aftermath of Katrina did not have the same effect in other cities in the region and certainly not in the countryside (I had a friend in AL who spoke of people helping each other and working together). Perhaps you are saying something about New Orleans itself, are you? There certainly was a large criminal element that took advantage of the situation, but I have yet to see evidence that the law-abiding engaged in rapine and murder. Your example does not quite meet the level required.

 

I would, however, agree that the behavior of that city was an abberation and atypical for America. Finally, martial law was not required in all areas impacted by the hurricane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wage ceilings? Can you explain?

 

It did bring to mind an idea though...instead of minimum wage, what if there were a regulation about the percentage difference between the maximum wage at a company and the minimum wage at that same company?

 

In such a case, as the company grows, all the workers would benefit equally. And if the CEO wants to increase his own salary, it would have to filter down to everyone. It would keep the greedy CEOs from screwing everyone else at the company.

 

Very few (if any) CEO's are out to "screw everyone else at the company". Most CEO's I know are very concerned about their subordinates and work hard to try to protect them as much as possible from layoffs, health insurance cost increases, etc. And the majority of them are not making millions of dollars per year for their efforts. The median total compensation for a CEO in the U.S. today is $267,841.

 

Only a tiny fraction of the CEO's in this country are the Fortune 500 fat cats demonized in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a truly free market, even the worker is free to choose where he/she will work, live, study, etc.

 

Baloney. Ever hear of redlining? The government had to pass laws to prevent companies from refusing to hire people because their skin color, etc.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did not collapse, really?

 

It started in 1929 and the "New deal" only started to be implemented in 1933 so what happened during the intervening years?

 

-750,000 farmers declared bankruptcy.

-Nearly 50% of the children of the great depression did not have adequate food, shelter, or medical care.

-The great depression unemployment rate reached 24.9% Toledo, Ohio got hit especially hard and reached an unemployment rate of 80%

 

What stopped the US sliding into chaos was arguably WWII and huge sales of armaments.

 

The only reason why nearly 50% of the children today have what you stated is because of unemployment, food stamps, and Medicaid/COBRA subsidies. These supports help keep the entire economy afloat as well. What if the millions who have been unemployed during this recession did not have those things? The lack of money being injected into the economy would have led to more layoffs as people weren't spending money on food, medical care, or shelter. Think of all the additional foreclosures if their had been NO unemployment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People making $2/hour can sue somebody? And what if they had kids starving at home, so they took $2 so they could have a piece of bread instead of nothing?

 

The people who make this argument are the same ones who say "everybody who really wants to work can work, they will take whatever job they can". And yet then say, "if they paid $2, people could choose not to work". If everyone had that philosophy, who would there be left to work for?

 

You're missing the point. The argument made by the previous poster was that the only jobs available paid $2 therefore one could only make $2. If that is the case, the attorney who handles the suit is also only making $2! No one would starve! Prices would fall because NO ONE would have enough money to purchase goods priced above the what the $2 wage earner could afford.

 

I would be a poor business owner to charge a price that NO ONE could pay because wages weren't in line with my product price. I'd go out of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would do away with minimum wage, all together. I think that the market would adjust itself. People would not work for those who didn't offer them enough money. Businesses that wished to obtain and keep good people would pay in order to do so.

 

People will work where they can. The entitlement programs like foodstamps are often making up a difference.

 

How many walmart employees are on food stamps? (a lot)

 

Should Walmart just pay their employees more or are people ok with the taxpayers making up the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baloney. Ever hear of redlining? The government had to pass laws to prevent companies from refusing to hire people because their skin color, etc.

 

Tara

 

Why not allow the market to boycott those businesses for practices the public finds abhorrent? What stake does the government have in my hiring practices? There are many successful business people of certain "skin color" who feel that these laws have actually hurt their people rather than provided the help intended.

 

We can go round and round on these issues and there will always be an argument and counter argument. It comes down to an issue of worldview. What do you see as the role of government? What do you believe about the nature of man? What must we as a people give up in order to live in an orderly society? What freedoms does the Constitution give the people and what does it give the government? Do we really believe the Constitution is applicable for today's society? I would bet you and I will have very different answers to those questions:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not allow the market to boycott those businesses for practices the public finds abhorrent? What stake does the government have in my hiring practices? There are many successful business people of certain "skin color" who feel that these laws have actually hurt their people rather than provided the help intended.

 

We can go round and round on these issues and there will always be an argument and counter argument. It comes down to an issue of worldview. What do you see as the role of government? What do you believe about the nature of man? What must we as a people give up in order to live in an orderly society? What freedoms does the Constitution give the people and what does it give the government? Do we really believe the Constitution is applicable for today's society? I would bet you and I will have very different answers to those questions:001_smile:

 

Do you boycott Walmart?

 

I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not allow the market to boycott those businesses for practices the public finds abhorrent?

 

Because a lot of times the public doesn't find them abhorrent.

 

What stake does the government have in my hiring practices?

 

I believe that a function of government is to protect its citizens from discrimination. If someone can be discriminated against in the marketplace on something that has nothing to do with qualifications for the job and everything to do with prejudice, then that person is not, imo, free.

 

There are many successful business people of certain "skin color" who feel that these laws have actually hurt their people rather than provided the help intended.

 

I wasn't, btw, talking about affirmative action, which I know is controversial. I was speaking merely of the idea that people can't be refused employment simply because of their skin color (or their gender, for that matter).

 

I would bet you and I will have very different answers to those questions:001_smile:

 

Probably so. :)

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very few (if any) CEO's are out to "screw everyone else at the company". Most CEO's I know are very concerned about their subordinates and work hard to try to protect them as much as possible from layoffs, health insurance cost increases, etc. And the majority of them are not making millions of dollars per year for their efforts. The median total compensation for a CEO in the U.S. today is $267,841.

 

Only a tiny fraction of the CEO's in this country are the Fortune 500 fat cats demonized in the media.

 

Wow, I totally agree with you. Now don't go agreeing with me too, pqr, that would just be too much in one day.

 

(And, may I also point out that THAT bracket is the kick off point for the new tax increases?-the people who are trying their hardest to make the economy grow?)

 

We have always paid more than minimum wage, we've done everything we could to not cut healthcare, we've moved shifts to not lay people off.

 

When you have a small company, it's more of a family and you don't want to see any of them suffer. We want them to be able to provide for their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you boycott Walmart?

 

I do.

 

Certainly not :D WalMart provides a huge percentage of the jobs in my area. Most of the workers I know are very happy with their employment there. Those who aren't are typically those who don't want to work anywhere and have no skills to get a better paying job and are not interested in acquiring those skills.

 

Sam Walton, a regular guy, had a great idea. He started off in the lower class, had an idea, acted on that idea, and it paid off handsomely, moving him into the "fat cat multi-millionaire" category.

 

BTW, Sam's brother in law is a regular guy, too, who has tipped my son well when he frequents our local diner. Although he owns several banks in the area and is involved in other business ventures, he, a "fat cat big business multi-millionaire" gives back in tremendous ways to our community. So we reap the benefits of being home to a "fat cat" CEO :D

 

The money I spend in our local WalMart gives profits to Sam's BIL who in turn built our very small community a Performing Arts Center to rival any in the "big city"; provides scholarships for the needy; and is the first in line to make contributions to needy causes. Yes, I'll continue buying from WalMart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not :D WalMart provides a huge percentage of the jobs in my area. Most of the workers I know are very happy with their employment there. Those who aren't are typically those who don't want to work anywhere and have no skills to get a better paying job and are not interested in acquiring those skills.

 

Sam Walton, a regular guy, had a great idea. He started off in the lower class, had an idea, acted on that idea, and it paid off handsomely, moving him into the "fat cat multi-millionaire" category.

 

BTW, Sam's brother in law is a regular guy, too, who has tipped my son well when he frequents our local diner. Although he owns several banks in the area and is involved in other business ventures, he, a "fat cat big business multi-millionaire" gives back in tremendous ways to our community. So we reap the benefits of being home to a "fat cat" CEO :D

 

The money I spend in our local WalMart gives profits to Sam's BIL who in turn built our very small community a Performing Arts Center to rival any in the "big city"; provides scholarships for the needy; and is the first in line to make contributions to needy causes. Yes, I'll continue buying from WalMart.

 

So you are ok with a large number of Walmart employees receiving food stamps or other government entitlement programs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I totally agree with you. Now don't go agreeing with me too, pqr, that would just be too much in one day.

 

(And, may I also point out that THAT bracket is the kick off point for the new tax increases?-the people who are trying their hardest to make the economy grow?)

 

We have always paid more than minimum wage, we've done everything we could to not cut healthcare, we've moved shifts to not lay people off.

 

When you have a small company, it's more of a family and you don't want to see any of them suffer. We want them to be able to provide for their families.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are ok with a large number of Walmart employees receiving food stamps or other government entitlement programs?

 

How is that WalMart's problem? That is an entitlement service set up by our government. WalMart isn't the cause of this entitlement. The government set up the parameters for these folks to receive the benefits. I prefer to see people working and receiving supplements rather than sitting home (capable of working) and drawing these benefits. There are a "large number" of people everywhere receiving those benefits!

 

I will say, though, that I fully support folks who take legal action where they feel it necessary. If WalMart's practices are unacceptable to you, boycott away! That's what freedom is about :-)

Edited by CynthiaOK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that WalMart's problem?

 

It's not. It's ours. We are subsidizing WalMart's poor business practices. But it's an example of how a company does what's best for its bottom line only and how this ends up hurting its employees. If WalMart could get away with paying people less than minimum wage and having them utilize even more public assistance, it would. It's not concerned about its workers. It's concerned about its shareholders.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These supports help keep the entire economy afloat as well. What if the millions who have been unemployed during this recession did not have those things?

 

These supports come from taxes and as the amount of users increases, the amount of taxes the government must take from its citizens increases. The biggest burden is on the small business owner. He goes out of business because it is no longer profitable for him to have a business. Then the job losses occur. One could easily argue that these entitlements are what caused the job losses in the first place (that and corrupt senators and representatives who sold their souls to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So government programs are good if they allow WalMart to depress wages and shunt people to public assistance, but bad if they affect small businesses or cause your taxes to go up? I am not sure I am following ...

 

Tara

 

I'm not taking a side on WalMart either way. The fact that employees are getting supplemental entitlements has nothing to do with WalMart, IMO. That is something the government set up and if those people fit the criteria, they are entitled to it whether I like it or not.

 

Personally, I don't like entitlement programs in general and don't believe the government should be involved so intimately in the affairs of its citizens. As a small business owner, I *do* believe that entitlements are part of the reason for the loss of jobs today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not taking a side on WalMart either way. The fact that employees are getting supplemental entitlements has nothing to do with WalMart, IMO. That is something the government set up and if those people fit the criteria, they are entitled to it whether I like it or not.

 

Personally, I don't like entitlement programs in general and don't believe the government should be involved so intimately in the affairs of its citizens. As a small business owner, I *do* believe that entitlements are part of the reason for the loss of jobs today.

 

How are entitlements part of the reason for the loss of jobs?

 

You don't think that Walmart has anything to do with it when they employ 1% of US workers? Anything they do affects things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why Wal-Mart gets singled out for criticism when practically all the other big box retailers pay equally low wages & stingy benefits. Do you really think the cashiers at Target, K-Mart, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Ross, CVS, Rite Aid, Best Buy, Staples, Home Depot, Michaels, Payless, etc. are any less likely to be on government assistance as the ones at Wal-Mart? :confused:

 

Now if you're someone who makes a point to only patronize small mom & pop boutique stores, then fine, I can see where you have the moral high ground to criticize. But most folks I know who wag their fingers at Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to shop at other big box retailers. Frankly, I think it's a snob thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why Wal-Mart gets singled out for criticism when practically all the other big box retailers pay equally low wages & stingy benefits. Do you really think the cashiers at Target, K-Mart, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Ross, CVS, Rite Aid, Best Buy, Staples, Home Depot, Michaels, Payless, etc. are any less likely to be on government assistance as the ones at Wal-Mart? :confused:

 

Now if you're someone who makes a point to only patronize small mom & pop boutique stores, then fine, I can see where you have the moral high ground to criticize. But most folks I know who wag their fingers at Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to shop at other big box retailers. Frankly, I think it's a snob thing.

 

And I agree again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why Wal-Mart gets singled out for criticism when practically all the other big box retailers pay equally low wages & stingy benefits. Do you really think the cashiers at Target, K-Mart, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Ross, CVS, Rite Aid, Best Buy, Staples, Home Depot, Michaels, Payless, etc. are any less likely to be on government assistance as the ones at Wal-Mart? :confused:

 

Now if you're someone who makes a point to only patronize small mom & pop boutique stores, then fine, I can see where you have the moral high ground to criticize. But most folks I know who wag their fingers at Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to shop at other big box retailers. Frankly, I think it's a snob thing.

 

I usually go to Costco since they treat their employees well. I don't only frequent small businesses at all. I certainly cannot afford that.

 

Fortune magazine does publish the "best employers" to work for lists and I do try and frequent the businesses that appear on that list.

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/full_list/

 

Walmart employees 1% of the country, they are always going to be held up as an example because they are the nation's largest employer.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? The local economy collapsed even just temporarily and it took martial law to restore order. They came from our nation with a tradition of law and freedom.

 

New Orleans before Katrina had horrible crime rates and was known as sin city. I don't believe their problems were only due to a collapse in their economy. My understanding is that when a bunch of the folks were evacuated to Houston, the crime rates in Houston skyrocketed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are entitlements part of the reason for the loss of jobs?

 

You don't think that Walmart has anything to do with it when they employ 1% of US workers? Anything they do affects things.

 

Entitlements are paid from taxes. The more I pay in taxes the less money I have to grow my business and create more jobs. When the tax burden is too great I close my business and lay off my employees.

 

Forcing walmart to pay higher wages would lead to less jobs and less money injected into the local community due to decreased profits. The real issue I see here is not that walmart pays poorly but rather that there are those who wish to enact legislation to spread the wealth around. An idea that is fundamentally abhorrent to me ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entitlements are paid from taxes. The more I pay in taxes the less money I have to grow my business and create more jobs. When the tax burden is too great I close my business and lay off my employees.

 

Forcing walmart to pay higher wages would lead to less jobs and less money injected into the local community due to decreased profits. The real issue I see here is not that walmart pays poorly but rather that there are those who wish to enact legislation to spread the wealth around. An idea that is fundamentally abhorrent to me ;)

 

How is it not "spreading the wealth" when they receive entitlements?

 

It is just a catch phrase that doesn't mean anything. How is it better that they receive entitlements than if they were paid more?

 

I am not suggesting legislation be enacted that they be forced to do so, I already voice my disagreement by taking my money elsewhere, I think more should do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't get is why Wal-Mart gets singled out for criticism when practically all the other big box retailers pay equally low wages & stingy benefits. Do you really think the cashiers at Target, K-Mart, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Ross, CVS, Rite Aid, Best Buy, Staples, Home Depot, Michaels, Payless, etc. are any less likely to be on government assistance as the ones at Wal-Mart? :confused:

 

Now if you're someone who makes a point to only patronize small mom & pop boutique stores, then fine, I can see where you have the moral high ground to criticize. But most folks I know who wag their fingers at Wal-Mart are perfectly happy to shop at other big box retailers. Frankly, I think it's a snob thing.

 

And though I agreed-I have to say, what price should we pay a cashier? I mean, should a cashier make a wage high enough to support a family? Or just augment a family's income?

 

The reason we pay higher than minimum wage is because we feel that the jobs we offer require more than the work a cashier would do-even the entry jobs. And more brains, too, though you only need a HS diploma to start. We're entrusting them to work with very expensive machines and a very teeny window for loss of product (regulatory standards).

 

I remember being on the cell with a GF who was getting a meal at Mc Ds. The girl got her order wrong four times. I was laughing SO HARD. But my GF, goddess of patience, asked me, "What do you expect from a person who works the window at McDs?" (GF was one of the first women computer engineers-she was no slouch.)

 

Which, was true. And in turn, what should they earn? Should they get full time with benefits?

 

Those benefits cost the companies $. And you have to think of those benefits as a total with the income as to how much that person 'earns' because it's coming out of the company for that person. The same with any other benefits.

 

You can't pay a person a high wage because they are a human, made in the image of God and therefore entitled to that wage, and you can't pay a person for what they are capable of, you pay them for the work they are hired to do.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...