Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Labor Pains In Colorado
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 166 (656677)
03-20-2012 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 2:36 PM


Then the minimum-ness of the wage you're not getting doesn't matter. And actually, maybe if the mimimum wage was lower, somebody could afford to employ you... But if they gotta pay you enough to afford a two-bedroom appartment, I could see why nobody would want to hire.
And this is actually a good argument against minimum wagewhich needs to be gotten rid of.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:18 AM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 166 (656678)
03-20-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
03-20-2012 5:33 PM


I doubt there is anyone out there who wants to raise a family on minimum wage. The fact remains that for many, that is the only option.
Of course that's not the only option. For anyone. Ever.
People can always choose not to raise a family.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 5:33 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 03-20-2012 10:41 PM Jon has replied

Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2656 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


(1)
Message 63 of 166 (656681)
03-20-2012 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jon
03-20-2012 10:31 PM


Or. . .
Unless, of course, one already has a family to raise. I don't think repeatedly ignoring Perdition's point about this is going to make it go away.
Lurker

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jon, posted 03-20-2012 10:31 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:20 AM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 166 (656685)
03-21-2012 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Itinerant Lurker
03-20-2012 10:41 PM


Re: Or. . .
Unless, of course, one already has a family to raise.
There are alternatives to minimum wage.
I don't think repeatedly ignoring Perdition's point about this is going to make it go away.
Since I've only once responded to Perdition in this thread, I am not sure how you could regard any of my treatment of his points as 'repeated'.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 03-20-2012 10:41 PM Itinerant Lurker has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 166 (656706)
03-21-2012 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Jon
03-20-2012 10:23 PM


And this is actually a good argument against minimum wagewhich needs to be gotten rid of.
I don't think it needs to be gotten rid of. Tho I think it could be gotten rid of. There should be some protection for workers, but it could be done other ways if people wanted to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Jon, posted 03-20-2012 10:23 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 03-21-2012 10:23 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 66 of 166 (656707)
03-21-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2012 10:18 AM


A Matter Of Honor
I dont see how its even possible to contemplate earning less than minimum wage and making it in any way worthy of ones time, honor, and dignity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:39 AM Phat has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 166 (656708)
03-21-2012 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Perdition
03-20-2012 5:33 PM


But I do think there should be a little help for those who have made mistakes or whose parents made mistakes. A minimum standard of living should be granted to people based purely on the fact that they're human beings. I include a livable wage, medical care, and education in that minimum.
I don't think a high minimum wage helps those goals.
The point is, though, that raising minimum wage because it isn't high enough for somebody to raise a family on isn't fair to both the employers and the employees who want to have position that aren't relied on for raising families.
But which jobs are those?
The ones teenagers do.
There are jobs you don't think people should try to raise a family by doing, but what do you say to those who have no other option? Tough luck?
I certainly wouldn't say: lets force your employer into paying you enough to raise your family on even though your job isn't worth it.
People can't just stop raising a family because the economy decides to take a nose dive.
Too, the economy can't be allowed to go throught the floor because some people can't raise their families.
The minimum wage, in part, protects those who can't afford to be paid less.
But the lowness of those wages serves other functions that raising the minimum would hurt.
I doubt there is anyone out there who wants to raise a family on minimum wage. The fact remains that for many, that is the only option.
They could get help from their friends and family and/or go on government aid. At worse, your family will be raised by someone else. We can't make this a place where there are no losers. People need to accept that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Perdition, posted 03-20-2012 5:33 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Perdition, posted 03-21-2012 11:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 166 (656709)
03-21-2012 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Phat
03-21-2012 10:23 AM


Re: A Matter Of Honor
Honor? Where's the honor in forcing someone pay you more than minimum wage for something as superfluous as bagging groceries?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Phat, posted 03-21-2012 10:23 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 03-21-2012 6:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 69 of 166 (656717)
03-21-2012 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
03-21-2012 10:32 AM


I don't think a high minimum wage helps those goals.
I'm not advocating a high minimum wage, just a higher one. If nothing else, it should keep up with inflation. If $7.25 was good enough (I'm not sure it was, but let's just say it was) ten years ago, then if inflation has caused prices to rise, it stands to reason that it is not good enough any more.
The ones teenagers do.
And teenagers can be paid a lower minimum, as I suggested. The issue is that there are few or no jobs that are done exclusively by teenagers. You still give an employer a choice, if he wants to pay people less, he can hire teenagers. If he wants someone older, perhaps more mature or trustworthy, he can hire an adult and then pay them more for that experience and trustworthiness.
I certainly wouldn't say: lets force your employer into paying you enough to raise your family on even though your job isn't worth it.
Being able to raise your family (or support yourself) is the sole reason to get a job. What other purpose is there to have a minimum? What should the minimum be? Enough to almost raise a family? Enough to buy McDonald's once a day for food? Dark Oni would love that situation.
What to you, should the minimum be judged by, if it's not enough to support yourself and your family?
Too, the economy can't be allowed to go throught the floor because some people can't raise their families.
I'm not aware of any time the economy has been adversely affected by raising the minimum wage. In fact, if people are getting paid more, they can buy more, and the economy does better. It's sort of the rising tide raising all boats thing. If you're a business owner, presumptively you're trying to sell a service or good. If you (and every other business owner) are paying your employees more, then you should be able to sell more of your goods and/or services because people have the ability to afford it.
But the lowness of those wages serves other functions that raising the minimum would hurt.
All I can see it doing is giving the employer a larger profit margin. For most big corporations, that profit marghin could be smaller without significantly harming them. For smaller businesses, I suggested tax incentives or breaks, which could be set up to ameliorate the lost profits due to higher wages.
They could get help from their friends and family and/or go on government aid. At worse, your family will be raised by someone else. We can't make this a place where there are no losers. People need to accept that.
If they have friends and family who are willing and able to help, they can do that. Again, you're assuming everyone has that.
Forcing people to give up their family because they lost their jobs and can't find better work than flipping burgers is just plain wrong. I don't want to live in a society that thinks this is a fine solution to the problem.
And I'm not advocating that we make this a place with no losers. I'm simply trying to make a place where losing isn't the most likely outcome when you decide to have a child. Part of being in a society is accepting that everyone will work together to make things better for everyone. That means some will sacrifice, and some will benefit by others' sacrifice. I have no problem with that, and prefer it to the 'everyone out for him/herself' model that seems to be so loved by many in this country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-21-2012 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:24 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2012 10:05 AM Perdition has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 70 of 166 (656718)
03-21-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2012 2:28 PM


Re: What's the point of minimum wage?
Do people honestly think that the point of it is to be the minimum amount you can raise a family on?
That is the whole point of the minimum wage. It is supposed to be a wage that affords a family the basic necessitites. The idea is that it is immoral to pay workers less than what it takes to live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2012 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:22 PM Taq has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 166 (656719)
03-21-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Taq
03-21-2012 12:02 PM


Re: What's the point of minimum wage?
The idea is that it is immoral to pay workers less than what it takes to live.
And it is stupid to pay workers more than what their work earns the employer.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 12:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 1:32 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 166 (656720)
03-21-2012 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Perdition
03-21-2012 11:38 AM


And teenagers can be paid a lower minimum, as I suggested. The issue is that there are few or no jobs that are done exclusively by teenagers. You still give an employer a choice, if he wants to pay people less, he can hire teenagers. If he wants someone older, perhaps more mature or trustworthy, he can hire an adult and then pay them more for that experience and trustworthiness.
If the government believes it is in the best interest of the nation to have adults with families earning more than teenagers for the exact same work, then it is the government that should pick up on paying those extra earnings.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Perdition, posted 03-21-2012 11:38 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Perdition, posted 03-21-2012 12:46 PM Jon has replied
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 03-21-2012 1:36 PM Jon has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 73 of 166 (656721)
03-21-2012 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jon
03-21-2012 12:24 PM


If the government believes it is in the best interest of the nation to have adults with families earning more than teenagers for the exact same work, then it is the government that should pick up on paying those extra earnings.
There are two responses to this. 1) Then pay teenagers the same amount as adults, i.e. the amount it costs to raise a family at 40 hours of work a week. ABE: The issues is not paying adults more it's paying teenagers less.
2) I sort of said this when I mentioned tax breaks/incentives to small businesses to cover the costs of paying higher wages.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:24 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 2:57 PM Perdition has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 74 of 166 (656726)
03-21-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jon
03-21-2012 12:22 PM


Re: What's the point of minimum wage?
And it is stupid to pay workers more than what their work earns the employer.
Since the employer sets the price for their services/goods I really don't see a problem.
The idea of a government mandated minimum wage is to prevent companies from undercutting each other through immoral labor practices. We could say the same thing about safety measures as well. A company could cut their bottom line by spending less money on worker safety. Afterall, why spend more on protecting the workers than what their work earns the employer, right? If a worker dies they can always hire a new worker, so why should they care?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:22 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 2:32 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 75 of 166 (656727)
03-21-2012 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jon
03-21-2012 12:24 PM


If the government believes it is in the best interest of the nation to have adults with families earning more than teenagers for the exact same work, then it is the government that should pick up on paying those extra earnings.
From my understanding of law, Congress sets the rules and businesses are required to follow those rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 03-21-2012 12:24 PM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024