Here's why minimum wage sucks

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Bull. You can certainly improve your lot in life without a degree. You're not destined to a life of minimum wage if you don't have a degree - ask Bill Gates. Or my friend Dan, who I've posted about before. He worked his way through college at UPS.

 

Gates is a horrible example. While he did not have a degree, he DROPPED OUT of Harvard by choice. I would imagine that Gates and your buddy Dan had slightly better situations. This is not a situation of going from lower middle-class to rich. This is a survival thing.

 

Has Dan ever been homeless? Has Dan ever been dependent upon drugs? Was Dan pregnant at 16?

 

I think that you were on the right track by saying that people on minimum wage are struggling to stay off welfare, which is why we should have minimum wage represent an achievable income sufficient to stay off public assistance.

 

I agree that people need to work for their money, but the amount of money has to be more than what would be made by sitting on their ass.

[Strike 5,488]

Gates is a horrible example. While he did not have a degree, he DROPPED OUT of Harvard by choice. I would imagine that Gates and your buddy Dan had slightly better situations. This is not a situation of going from lower middle-class to rich. This is a survival thing.

 

Has Dan ever been homeless? Has Dan ever been dependent upon drugs? Was Dan pregnant at 16?

 

I think that you were on the right track by saying that people on minimum wage are struggling to stay off welfare, which is why we should have minimum wage represent an achievable income sufficient to stay off public assistance.

 

I agree that people need to work for their money, but the amount of money has to be more than what would be made by sitting on their ass.

 

LOL. Bill Gates is a horrible choice because he chose to leave an Ivy League education to start a company that could just as easily have fallen on it's face as become what it is today. Yet, your examples are people who have gotten themselves pregnant as teenagers and/or been dependent on drugs. Wouldn't you concede that those people have made their own choices in life? And having done so aren't they responsible for their actions? Or are you suggesting that becoming dependent on drugs and/or getting pregnant is not a personal decision? And no Dan was never never dependent on drugs or pregnant at 16. He did, however, have to pay for every cent of his post high school education himself including room and board, and showed responsibility in working his way through college, unlike the examples you've cited that you're using to support a socialist agenda. It seems to me that your examples are equally bad, if not worse, than mine supposedly are.

[TylerRoseFan 16]

I used to work at an aluminum insert sliding company (made walls and shelving for businesses plus the glass sliding doors at target the video games are found in)

 

It was a small business, and they often had a hard time finding enough hours for everyone. What they did was make a "piecework" system where you got paid by the amount of things you finished.

 

before this i used to make exactly $8 an hour. what i did was slide about 530 or so aluminum inserts into a large wooden crate that had slots... i used to make simply the $8 an hour doin that so i'd go at a semi slow/acceptable pace. at this pace it took me like an hour and a half/ two hoursto do one. And if i ran out of them to do i would simply hang around and do unimportant jobs to occupy my time til it was 5 pm.

 

During the summer they switched it to piece work, and they paid $14 dollars a box... at first i thought it was bullsh1t because i figured this was just a way to give me less hours (without technically giving me hours) at about the same wage. I found that after i started actually trying to do the work faster i could do it in far less time. Some fellow co workers and i thought of different ways to speed up the process also.

 

(Also... these dollar amounts are midwest wages)

 

The time to do each box got cut down to between 35-45 minutes... I found that i could make nearly $20 an hour, which isn't bad for grunt work. The business also made money, because they didn't have an obligation to give me 8 hours of work a day. On certain days there would only be like 4 boxes to do, but hell $64 dollars for like 3 hours of work is pretty sweet in the summer when you'd rather be outside golfing or something.

 

So i guess my solution would be to see if there is a way to get off of "hourly wages" and lean more towards piecework. It not only benifits the business by giving workers bonuses for hard work, often times it allows them to make more money in a shorter period of time. More work gets done.

So, you get paid for what you do, not for your time. Good stuff. Good stuff.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

LOL. Bill Gates is a horrible choice because he chose to leave an Ivy League education to start a company that could just as easily have fallen on it's face as become what it is today. Yet, your examples are people who have gotten themselves pregnant as teenagers and/or been dependent on drugs. Wouldn't you concede that those people have made their own choices in life? And having done so aren't they responsible for their actions? Or are you suggesting that becoming dependent on drugs and/or getting pregnant is not a personal decision? And no Dan was never never dependent on drugs or pregnant at 16. He did, however, have to pay for every cent of his post high school education himself including room and board, and showed responsibility in working his way through college, unlike the examples you've cited that you're using to support a socialist agenda. It seems to me that your examples are equally bad, if not worse, than mine supposedly are.

 

The point is that Dan (is he from Forrest Gump?) and Bill Gates were going to be fine regardless of minimum wage. I paid for my college as well. That is not the issue. The issue is that you either have wages that are enough to keep hard working people with few skills off of welfare or you pay for welfare. I will shoot for the former. How about you?

 

If you want to debate the "hard working" part, then we might have a discussion, but I think that you are overgeneralizing.

[Strike 5,488]

The issue is that you either have wages that are enough to keep hard working people with few skills off of welfare or you pay for welfare.

 

Actually that's not the issue at all. I don't believe you have to do either. People make their own beds and they can lie in them. If we stopped enabling people to be bums maybe we'd start having a more responsible society, as we used to before we started down this road of socialism.

[Greedo 13]

My brother is the ops manager/hr manager of a small metal stamping company.

 

Yesterday in Ohio, the minimum wage was increased from 5.15 to 6.85.

 

The "grunts" that are currently making 7.15/hr are now complaining about making "a quarter over minimum wage." (Yeah, I know it's 30 cents.) They all want a dollar per hour raise now. These are mostly guys that live with their parents and go to college part time.

 

This business started out with just a handful of people and has grown to about 25 employees. 20 of them are hourly. 2 of the hourly guys have been there since the beginning, and make pretty good money.

 

Well, guess what? Ends aren't going to meet.

 

My brother was asked to either:

 

Fire all of the $7.15 guys and hire newbies (basically shuts the co. down for hiring and training, likely leading to lost business and further firings. It's extremely difficult to find 18 year olds that will work for just-over-minimum-wage.)

 

Layoff 5 or 6 mid level hourly workers to cover the "grunts" pay increase, since they would also need a pay increase (Fock you grunts, but the likely option.)

 

Layoff both of the original hourly guys that helped build the company. (Backstab-defined.)

 

Everything was fine when the MW was $5.15. Nobody worked for it, and everyone was happy.

 

 

Back to the original post. If the company is running so thin that a less than $2 per hour raise for less than 25 employees causes layoffs? Sounds like the company has other troubles than the minimum wage.

 

 

raising the minimum wage or implementing a living wage will not help the unfortunate gain wealth.

 

 

I hope you realize that becoming wealthy is not the point.

 

Apparently you define 'decent wage' as an arbitrary number that politicians determine as opposed to the wage that the market bears.

Our economy is based on supply and demand. Adding legislation to override the system is dangerous IMO.

 

 

Look up "externality" in your economics book. When the market is unable to properly police itself, government must step in.

 

 

so the 15 yr old working for extra money 15 hours a week at a restaurant as a busboy should be making this $7.50 necessarily?

 

It's just not feasible in every instance, and instead of helping this kid in college the restaurant owner might just be forced to live with less employees. One size does not fit all in this instance, and you can't argue that raising the minimum wage is going to mae life better for everyone.

 

Besides, it doesn't really matter anyways cause the net income gain is going to be offset by the increase in price of goods and services resulting from the wage increase.

 

 

Personally, I don't care about the 15 year old kid, but about an adult with a family.

 

 

Okay, I've been looking at this scenario a little more;

 

We have 20 hourly employees; at least five or six of them are mid-level, and two of them are higher than that. That leaves us a maximum of 12 grunts asking for the pay increase.

 

Assuming these 12 are all full time wokers (2080 hrs/yr) that would mean a labor increase of roughly twenty five grand.

 

12guys x 2080hrs x $1 = $24960

 

Throw in a couple more grand for employer matching and whatnot and lets call it a cost increase of $30G (being generous).

 

Now I don't know what the mid-level guys make, but it's more than $7.15 an hour obviously which means they should run the company at least $15G a piece per year. Why the fock would you have to lay off 5 or 6 guys making $15G a year to cover a $30G cost increase? Or lay off two guys making "pretty good money?"

 

Now I'm not saying this story is bullsh!t, but it don't add up. Maybe management just wants to cut dead weight but wants the minimum wage increase to take the bullet for it.

 

 

Right on. Just doesn't make sense.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Actually that's not the issue at all. I don't believe you have to do either. People make their own beds and they can lie in them. If we stopped enabling people to be bums maybe we'd start having a more responsible society, as we used to before we started down this road of socialism.

 

Apparently, you have never dealt with people who own companies. I deal with it all of the time and they (like the person who made the original post) are looking to pay as little as possible for labor. Talk to the people that clean the bathrooms in your office park, the landscapers in your office park, and every retail person that you deal with while you are shopping. Ask how many have marketable skills that they can take elsewhere and earn more than minimum wage (particularly to start).

[Strike 5,488]

Apparently, you have never dealt with people who own companies. I deal with it all of the time and they (like the person who made the original post) are looking to pay as little as possible for labor. Talk to the people that clean the bathrooms in your office park, the landscapers in your office park, and every retail person that you deal with while you are shopping. Ask how many have marketable skills that they can take elsewhere and earn more than minimum wage (particularly to start).

 

Yes, I'm aware that employers want to keep costs down. Seems like good business sense to me. And? Is there a point to anything in this post?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Yes, I'm aware that employers want to keep costs down. Seems like good business sense to me. And? Is there a point to anything in this post?

 

You might want to move to Indonesia. Keeping costs down is not the sole purpose of government. There is a "greater good" that can be achieved. Answer the question and move on. I am trying to help you see the value, but I fear that I am on an impossible mission.

[Strike 5,488]

You might want to move to Indonesia. Keeping costs down is not the sole purpose of government. There is a "greater good" that can be achieved. Answer the question and move on. I am trying to help you see the value, but I fear that I am on an impossible mission.

 

You're right in that you aren't making any compelling arguments whatsoever, what with suggesting that it's societies responsibility to compensate for people who choose to become pregnant or dependent on drugs when they should be preparing themselves for life. However, I actually don't have a problem with a minimum wage. I do, however, have a problem with the argument that we need one high enough that it allows people to support a family. That's just ridiculous. There's never going to be one that would allow that for one thing. Secondly, many of the jobs that are now being used to support families were never intended to do that. When I was a kid most of those jobs were "transitional" jobs that one uses while they prepare themselves for life. People should not be counting on working minimum wage, or even close to it, for their entire lives. People need to take responsibility for their own destiny and do whatever is required (legally) to achieve their goals. I refuse to feel sorry for someone who chooses otherwise.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

You're right in that you aren't making any compelling arguments whatsoever, what with suggesting that it's societies responsibility to compensate for people who choose to become pregnant or dependent on drugs when they should be preparing themselves for life. However, I actually don't have a problem with a minimum wage. I do, however, have a problem with the argument that we need one high enough that it allows people to support a family. That's just ridiculous. There's never going to be one that would allow that for one thing. Secondly, many of the jobs that are now being used to support families were never intended to do that. When I was a kid most of those jobs were "transitional" jobs that one uses while they prepare themselves for life. People should not be counting on working minimum wage, or even close to it, for their entire lives. People need to take responsibility for their own destiny and do whatever is required (legally) to achieve their goals. I refuse to feel sorry for someone who chooses otherwise.

 

I don't think that minimum wage is designed to support a family. It is designed to prevent an individual from being a burden on society.

 

Try this one out. Live for one month on minimum wage and let's see what happens.

 

BTW - It has been done before and it is not pretty (see Morgan Spurlock)

 

I am a capitalist, but I do not see how increasing the minimum wage (which is an unlivable wage) impacts business or employees negatively. It is a mechanism to prevent employers from taking advantage of those who are not in unions or do not have highly desirable market skills.

[itsbigmoni 1]

LOL. Bill Gates is a horrible choice because he chose to leave an Ivy League education to start a company that could just as easily have fallen on it's face as become what it is today. Yet, your examples are people who have gotten themselves pregnant as teenagers and/or been dependent on drugs. Wouldn't you concede that those people have made their own choices in life? And having done so aren't they responsible for their actions? Or are you suggesting that becoming dependent on drugs and/or getting pregnant is not a personal decision? And no Dan was never never dependent on drugs or pregnant at 16. He did, however, have to pay for every cent of his post high school education himself including room and board, and showed responsibility in working his way through college, unlike the examples you've cited that you're using to support a socialist agenda. It seems to me that your examples are equally bad, if not worse, than mine supposedly are.

 

If Dan can do it, anyone can! Dude, it doesn't work like that. You say the examples were of people who have gotten themselves pregnet or addicted to drugs and it was their ###### up. So if you're a black american growing up in the projects in a single parent household with 5 brothers and kids and your mom is an addict, you should still be able to make the right decisons. You should still have the drive to succeed. In the media your told you either gotta be a rapper or baller, and thats not helped with current stars playing into the medias hands and displaying that attitude. A kid in this environment is suppose to succeed? Imagine having no guidance, no one to tell you to do your homework, no one telling you how to act. And if you go buy your surrondings everyones drinking, doin drugs, and other crimes. That kid has a million times tougher to even make it to a min wage job than your avg person.

[Strike 5,488]

It is a mechanism to prevent employers from taking advantage of those who are not in unions or do not have highly desirable market skills.

 

I think that depends on your definition of "taking advantage" of now doesn't it?

 

If Dan can do it, anyone can! Dude, it doesn't work like that. You say the examples were of people who have gotten themselves pregnet or addicted to drugs and it was their ###### up. So if you're a black american growing up in the projects in a single parent household with 5 brothers and kids and your mom is an addict, you should still be able to make the right decisons. You should still have the drive to succeed. In the media your told you either gotta be a rapper or baller, and thats not helped with current stars playing into the medias hands and displaying that attitude. A kid in this environment is suppose to succeed? Imagine having no guidance, no one to tell you to do your homework, no one telling you how to act. And if you go buy your surrondings everyones drinking, doin drugs, and other crimes. That kid has a million times tougher to even make it to a min wage job than your avg person.

 

Are you telling me that a kid from that environment has never succeeded?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think that depends on your definition of "taking advantage" of now doesn't it?

 

That is debateable. No doubt. However, I have seen quite a bit of it in action and it happens more often than you think.

 

I do not like unions at all. I think that they have outlived their purpose. However, I see situations, particularly in manual labor (golf courses, resorts, etc.) where they take FULL advantage of minimum wage. I don't know about you, but those people are not my friends or family, so I don't see the complete impact, but I know what they make and I scratch my head wondering how they stay afloat.

[Strike 5,488]

That is debateable. No doubt. However, I have seen quite a bit of it in action and it happens more often than you think.

 

I do not like unions at all. I think that they have outlived their purpose. However, I see situations, particularly in manual labor (golf courses, resorts, etc.) where they take FULL advantage of minimum wage. I don't know about you, but those people are not my friends or family, so I don't see the complete impact, but I know what they make and I scratch my head wondering how they stay afloat.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that it happens. Again, it goes to my point about a 30 year old man not having prepared himself for life. That's on him. And there's still no reason he can't improve himself. Go to night school, get your GED, then to a J.C. for an associates degree. That moves you up a couple of notches for minimal cost. Then you can afford more advanced training. So what if the dude is 30 years old. It's up to him to improve his position in life. Noone should be trying to support themself on minimum wage unless they're working towards something better.

[birdbrain3X 0]

When people on welfare live better than people with jobs, there's a real, real problem.

 

I agree. Some of us like to call it the "Clinton Administration".

[Snoopy1 0]

LOL. Bill Gates is a horrible choice because he chose to leave an Ivy League education to start a company that could just as easily have fallen on it's face as become what it is today. Yet, your examples are people who have gotten themselves pregnant as teenagers and/or been dependent on drugs. Wouldn't you concede that those people have made their own choices in life? And having done so aren't they responsible for their actions? Or are you suggesting that becoming dependent on drugs and/or getting pregnant is not a personal decision? And no Dan was never never dependent on drugs or pregnant at 16. He did, however, have to pay for every cent of his post high school education himself including room and board, and showed responsibility in working his way through college, unlike the examples you've cited that you're using to support a socialist agenda. It seems to me that your examples are equally bad, if not worse, than mine supposedly are.

 

 

He didn't leave to start a company. He and Allen had already started Microsoft in 1975 and were producing Basic for Altair and Micro Instruments.

[parrot 789]

I agree. Some of us like to call it the "Clinton Administration".

Major welfare reform was passed during the "Clinton Administration". Do you fockers even vaguely fact check your old news smears?

[Strike 5,488]

He didn't leave to start a company. He and Allen had already started Microsoft in 1975 and were producing Basic for Altair and Micro Instruments.

 

Come on man. They had a little podunk company in like Arizona, if memory serves me correctly. While it was generating revenue it was nothing until they landed their deal with IBM.