justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 27, 2013 16:17:31 GMT -5
Ok, for all those who support raising MW wage to this mythical living wage point. Who should be at the bottom of the totem pole? Those that make the lowest wages, those that need help, those at the bottom of the bell curve that live below the poverty rate. What jobs should those entail?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 27, 2013 16:20:43 GMT -5
Ok, for all those who support raising MW wage to this mythical living wage point. Who should be at the bottom of the totem pole? Those that make the lowest wages, those that need help, those at the bottom of the bell curve that live below the poverty rate. What jobs should those entail? I am not even understanding how making MW be a livable wage is supposed to work. Wouldn't that just inflate everyone's salary, thereby inflating the cost of everything? If the cashiers started making $12/hr my AP clerk is going to want more than $15/hr. If she gets bumped to $20/hr my financial analyst will want more...and so on and so on. That's not counting the guys who work in the plant that make $12-$15, there wages will go up...we will have no choice but to raise prices. OUr customers will now have increased salaries to pay, along with increased supply costs so their prices have to go up...eventually that living wage is no longer a living wage.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 27, 2013 16:21:05 GMT -5
Nordstrom, like most retail jobs, pays suck as well. They get women to work there for the discounts.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 27, 2013 16:21:34 GMT -5
Ok, for all those who support raising MW wage to this mythical living wage point. Who should be at the bottom of the totem pole? Those that make the lowest wages, those that need help, those at the bottom of the bell curve that live below the poverty rate. What jobs should those entail? I am not even understanding how making MW be a livable wage is supposed to work. Wouldn't that just inflate everyone's salary, thereby inflating the cost of everything? If the cashiers started making $12/hr my AP clerk is going to want more than $15/hr. If she gets bumped to $20/hr my financial analyst will want more...and so on and so on. That's not counting the guys who work in the plant that make $12-$15, there wages will go up...we will have no choice but to raise prices. OUr customers will now have increased salaries to pay, along with increased supply costs so their prices have to go up...eventually that living wage is no longer a living wage. That's kind of my point
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 27, 2013 16:23:01 GMT -5
I am not even understanding how making MW be a livable wage is supposed to work. Wouldn't that just inflate everyone's salary, thereby inflating the cost of everything? If the cashiers started making $12/hr my AP clerk is going to want more than $15/hr. If she gets bumped to $20/hr my financial analyst will want more...and so on and so on. That's not counting the guys who work in the plant that make $12-$15, there wages will go up...we will have no choice but to raise prices. OUr customers will now have increased salaries to pay, along with increased supply costs so their prices have to go up...eventually that living wage is no longer a living wage. That's kind of my point
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 27, 2013 16:25:52 GMT -5
Costco starts people off at 8.75 unless the state they are in demands more. Starbucks pays 8.25 plus "tips." Which is horseshit to tip someone for doing their freaking job but that's another issue. Managers were so poorly paid they took tips from the tip jar creating a huge issue.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 27, 2013 16:27:42 GMT -5
If you keep raising minimum wage, you will lose jobs. Plain and simple. So this screws the people who need a part-time job to supplement school or whatever.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 27, 2013 16:28:29 GMT -5
Good question. Companies only duty is to their shareholders, but it just seems wrong to me to increase profits by not paying enough so your employees still qualify for food stamps. So, I don't know, I know this is the commony held US view of the corporate entity. However, other parts of the world have a different view, that I think might be more appropriate. A co-worker who grew up in Austria was telling me about the Austrian view of a corporate business. Their view holds that a corporation is obligated to three stakeholder groups. Stockholders, employees, and the public, which includes the corporation's customers. And the corporation has an obligation to conduct business in a fashion that protects the interests of all of the stakeholder groups. If you buy into this type of philosophy, it translates into practical actions. Such as you don't harmful wastes in rivers, landfills and the like simply because that is the cheapest way to dispose of your waste and doing so maximizes the return to your shareholders. You also consider the impact on the public if you pollute the water supply or create large scale soil contamination that has an adverse impact of the health of the public. And you don't lay off a large part of your workforce during a down economic cycle just because it maximizes the return to your shareholders, and as a result, maximizes the bonuses of the senior managers. Actually, executive incentive programs should be structured to penalize senior executives more for sacrificing the workforce than they do for failing to achieve profitability targets. I think that operating a business is about balancing a lot of often conflicting objectives. For corporate management to focus only on shareholder return at the expense of any other objectives is the lazy, selfish approach. However, I do not believe that corporations are obligated to make sure that no-one lives in poverty. In the US today, we have the same level of poverty as we had back in the mid 1960's (about 15%) , when LBJ started his War on Poverty. This statistic is, of course, inflated a bit by recent economic events. But, one the whole, we have not made poverty go away by creating social service programs that provide goods and services to people with low incomes. So, it doesn't appear that the give away approach has been overwhelmingly successful. Rather, it seems like a portion of the population has decided that it is too hard to work to improve their lot in life, as long as other people make it their life's work to ensure that the poor don't suffer too much. In some respects, removing the opportunity to fail has also appeared to have removed much of the incentive to succeed. I think it is the role of government to reduce or eliminate obstacles to success. Some great examples of reducing or eliminating obstacles are the legislation to prohibit employment discrimination based on race, sex, and the like, and grant and loan programs that help low income students go to college. But, it is not the role of government, or business, to ensure that people (except for a very few, who are truly unable to provide for themselves) are insulated from the opportunity to fail.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Sept 27, 2013 16:39:09 GMT -5
ok so we have an employee that is basically homeless. The payroll lady (my mom) said she needed a physical address for one of the reportings we do. He said he didn't have one but that he was sure his soon to be ex would let him still receive mail at her house. What if he had left it at "I don't have one."? I'm new to my company and we had an "important survey" they kept asking new employees to do. When I finally did it, it was basically 2 questions, something like "Have you been on public assistance during the past 12 months? If so, has your employment here assisted you in coming off the public assistance?" IDK what the survey was for. They may have been screening to see if you were a new hire that qualified them for employment tax credits (work opportunity tax credit, new hire tax credit). There are several available at the Federal and State level.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Sept 27, 2013 16:50:44 GMT -5
Doing right by shareholders and paying decent wages are not mutually exclusive. Costco, Starbucks, Nordstron and Fred Meyer are good examples. Walmart profits on the backs of the taxpayers. I have a different persective. The social safety nets that are in place allow employees of WalMart and some other companys to stay in low paying jobs that do not provide for their needs. If their pay checks did not provide for their needs, they would have to move on to better paying jobs. And Walmart and others would either have to deal with constant turn over (hey, the McD business model is to have about 400% annual turnover in their workforce) or they would have to pay better to reduce the turnover to a level they can handle. I'm not throwing stones at employees in low income jobs. I'm just saying that the situation is facilitated by the social programs. Eliminate the social programs and it changes the dynamic of the labor market. It is government interference in the free market aspects of the labor market that has created the situation we are presented with. If the government had not created programs that provide a portion of low income folk's needs, companies such as Walmart would most likely be paying more to attract the employees they need.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 27, 2013 19:53:44 GMT -5
If you keep raising minimum wage, you will lose jobs. Plain and simple. So this screws the people who need a part-time job to supplement school or whatever. If that were true, then why does Australia (minimum wage of $16.88) have a lower unemployment rate than the US? And it's not just Australia.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 27, 2013 20:28:09 GMT -5
I worked for a 100,000 employee corporation that did exactly that. Not once in 30 years did I hear talk at our mgmt meetings that didn't consider the fate of the customers, our corp rep, our good neighborhood standing, as well as our Return on Assets. As for the 'layoff' part, we used job shoppers for about 10% of our workers. So when we had a downturn or lost a major contract, we could go down to 90% w/o laying off a direct employee. But the reality is - if your payroll is $4B/yr and if Revenue that is normally $4.5B/yr suddenly drops to $3.5B somebody has to go, no company can support that kind of headwind and stay alive. So to save the company as well as 90% of the people, the choices are 10% layoff, everyone accepts a 10% cut, or some combo of those.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 28, 2013 5:30:11 GMT -5
I would think raising the minimum wage would just lead to inflation and not really improve the situation. It could also seriously impact some businesses that do not have high profits.
I think the social programs direct support to where it is truly needed without forcing companies to pay a living wage to everyone. Paying a living wage that covers the single mom with 2 kids means that the 18 yr is making a huge salary and might forego school because why bother if you make 30k/yr without it. Plus everyone's wages will shift. If a high school grad earns 30k running a register, then all the slightly above min wage jobs would have to increase their wages to compete for good employees.
High profit companies like Walmart still pay to cover those in need. Earlier in this thread it was said that 1.3 billion in welfare goes to Walmart employees. Walmart paid over 7 billion in taxes in 2010. And that doesn't include what all their overpaid high level employees would have paid in taxes. Walmart has over 2 million employees. So had they directly paid out an additional 1 billion in wages, that would be something like 500-2000/employee depending how you ration out the increase. That may be a lot to the 18 yr old single guy, but not going to come close replace the welfare benefits received by the single mom of 2. She probably gets over 3k/yr in food stamps alone and then may be getting ,medicaid, eitc, possibly housing and daycare assistance, etc. Instead of now having an overpaid teen and a still struggling single mom, you have targeted assistance that gets the mom the help she needs for the same amount of spending, just distributed through the govt rather coming directly from her employer.
Maybe I just lack vision, but I have a hard time envisioning a better system than one that allows companies to pay low skill workers based on value, but still provides assistance to those who truly need it. Although I did read Australia has varying min wage based on age. That could indirectly help those with families as they likely aren't really young and at the same time help lower the teen unemployment rate because there would be a financial incentive to hiring teens over adults even in a time with high unemployment. On the flip side you may end up with more unemployment among low skill adults.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 28, 2013 5:41:37 GMT -5
Australia has its own issues. High unemployment, cradle to grave mentality, and huge crime. I wonder how much of that is tied to their economy?
|
|
Otto the Orange
Well-Known Member
Go Orange!
Joined: Aug 23, 2012 4:20:52 GMT -5
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Otto the Orange on Sept 28, 2013 6:31:22 GMT -5
I will answer yours if you answer mine. You are only looking at the profit of a company to determine what their employees should get paid. If there is a WalMart around Dark's store, should Dark be held to paying the same salaries that you think WalMart should pay? If so, you are going to tank the mom and pop stores. Then again, who is going to want to work at the mom and pop stores if they are payinig significantly less than WalMart? How many handouts to the employees of the mom and pop stores get? I will never agree that the salary paid to employees should be some calculation of the company's income. Either we raise the minimum wage on EVERYONE or on no one. I agree with that. I think the focus on the big ones is only because when you multiply the individual case by a million or two - the huge impact of these social programs is seen. it is often lost on the indivdual level. Now - with the mom and pop stores - they're called that because it's usually a couple who own and do the lion's share of the work. They may hire some workers, but the majority is on them as the business owners. but if they need a releif worker, yes - that person should be paid according to the same principal. I think that these social programs are depressing wages and distorting the supply and demand. Rukh- I am confused what you are saying with the above? Are you implying it is OK that the mom and pop stores pay the help lower wages since mom and pop are doing most of the "heavy lifting and real work"? Only he people mom and pop hire to cover down for them when they go on vacation or whatever ("relief worker"? is that your definition of a relief worker?) f that's the case, do you really think the wal mart minimal wage workers are the ones doing all the heavy lifting? If I have your scenario right than I would say the majority of the wal mart busiess is actually on the store managers, assistant managers and department managers (just like you say in the mom and pop store they do the lion share of the work)...or is there an issue wit Walmarts pay of these managers too? If I am misinterpretting what you are saying about mom and pop stores please let me know
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 8:09:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 7:07:36 GMT -5
I agree with that. I think the focus on the big ones is only because when you multiply the individual case by a million or two - the huge impact of these social programs is seen. it is often lost on the indivdual level. Now - with the mom and pop stores - they're called that because it's usually a couple who own and do the lion's share of the work. They may hire some workers, but the majority is on them as the business owners. but if they need a releif worker, yes - that person should be paid according to the same principal. I think that these social programs are depressing wages and distorting the supply and demand. Rukh- I am confused what you are saying with the above? Are you implying it is OK that the mom and pop stores pay the help lower wages since mom and pop are doing most of the "heavy lifting and real work"? Only he people mom and pop hire to cover down for them when they go on vacation or whatever ("relief worker"? is that your definition of a relief worker?) f that's the case, do you really think the wal mart minimal wage workers are the ones doing all the heavy lifting? If I have your scenario right than I would say the majority of the wal mart busiess is actually on the store managers, assistant managers and department managers (just like you say in the mom and pop store they do the lion share of the work)...or is there an issue wit Walmarts pay of these managers too? If I am misinterpretting what you are saying about mom and pop stores please let me know Thank you! And it easy to target Walmart because it is 1 company, the math is easy. Take all the mom and pops in all the towns/cities of America and come back to us. Their impact is just as big if not bigger.... You cannot arbitrarily make one set of rule for Company A but Company B, C and D because they are smaller are not obligated to follow those rules.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,005
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Sept 28, 2013 7:44:56 GMT -5
ok so we have an employee that is basically homeless. The payroll lady (my mom) said she needed a physical address for one of the reportings we do. He said he didn't have one but that he was sure his soon to be ex would let him still receive mail at her house. What if he had left it at "I don't have one."? I'm new to my company and we had an "important survey" they kept asking new employees to do. When I finally did it, it was basically 2 questions, something like "Have you been on public assistance during the past 12 months? If so, has your employment here assisted you in coming off the public assistance?" IDK what the survey was for. They are probably wanting to get the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit if they hire people and get them off of welfare. We went through a phase at one of my employers where we were hiring almost entirely out of the welfare-to-work program because there was an additional state incentive payment that made the employees practically free for the first year. Veteran Target GroupReceives SNAP (food stamps) benefits $2,400Entitled to compensation for service-connected disabilityHired one year from leaving service $4,800 Unemployed at least 6 months $9,600 Unemployed VeteranAt least 4 weeks $2,400 At least 6 months $5,600 Other WOTC Target GroupsShort-Term TANF Recipient $2,400Long-Term TANF Recipient $9,000 (over 2 yrs) SNAP (food stamp) Recipient $2,400 Designated Community Resident $2,400 Vocational Rehabilitation Referral $2,400 Ex-Felon $2,400 SSI Recipient $2,400 Summer Youth $1,200
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,908
|
Post by haapai on Sept 28, 2013 8:21:30 GMT -5
Thanks resolution,
That explains a lot of the hiring (and firing) decisions that I saw a few years ago.
The disabled vet seemed to know the game. He bragged that he was pretty much free to the company and worked accordingly. A lot of young women complained about where his eyes were before he finally got the axe.
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Sept 28, 2013 8:36:17 GMT -5
These are very complex problems with no one person/corporation responsible.
I live in an area of Canada with high unemployment (11.6%) and low literacy rates (53% of high school grads are not functionally literate). Traditional jobs are in fishing, forestry, farming etc. But those are seasonal jobs for one, and disappearing.
How have people solved the problem?
Some stay in their little villages where their parents, grandparents, great grandparents have always lived and go on "pogey". Work enough to get enough for employment insurance for a year - rinse and repeat. I had friends hire a labourer to work in their field for 2 weeks. After 1 week he quit because "he had enough stamps".
I don't think you will ever get rid of the people who work the system like that. The Federal government is trying to make it harder to repeatedly use employment insurance and there have been protests in the street.
I don't understand someone who would rather sit on their butts all day with their smokes and get a maximum of $500/week. I doubt most people make that much per week. Although there is also a big underground economy, so maybe they just think of EI as an income supplement.
Then others have moved from small villages into the cities because there is more work and there is a shortage of retail workers. Others keep their families in the small village and the man goes out west to work in the oil sands, or in mining up North, coming back every few weeks. They make great money, but it isn't the ideal situation for people with families.
However more and more I have seen entrepreneurs. Necessity is the mother of invention right? There are a lot of people with little home based businesses that generate enough to sustain themselves. Not live high on the hog, but enough. And there are a lot of back to the Earth types who are starting organic farms etc. Generally, these people come from away and buy land here because it is so cheap and plentiful.
As a taxpayer, I have no objection to government incentives for businesses, for people to go to school etc. I think if you are on EI you should be made to work at SOMETHING for the community. I don't think government should continually throw money after dying industries as has been the case here.
You can't rely on the tax code to force businesses to hire workers, because it is super easy to set up a corp. offshore. Corporate tax rates in US are already among the highest and smart companies will shift things around to save taxes.
People are responsible for themselves and their families. I don't know why you would expect corporations to NEED to provide "living wages". What is a living wage anyway? Isn't that subjective?
Foreign workers come here from the other side of the globe, seem to be able to support themselves AND send money home for their families just fine at their minimum wage jobs. They are the ones who are willing to work 6-7 days a week and live with 6 roommates and use bikes to get around. I really admire them. More people would do well to follow their example.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 28, 2013 8:46:52 GMT -5
Australia has its own issues. High unemployment, cradle to grave mentality, and huge crime. I wonder how much of that is tied to their economy? From what I can find, Australia's unemployment rate is about 5.8% (figure for August 2013). Rate of crime (overall) isn't as high there as here, either, as near as I can tell. Do you have sites with statistics to back up what you're positing, zib? Please post them, if you do. I'm short of time to really research.
|
|
mtman
Familiar Member
Banned 01.20.14
Joined: Oct 29, 2011 9:53:04 GMT -5
Posts: 506
|
Post by mtman on Sept 28, 2013 9:22:15 GMT -5
Starbucks pays 8.25 plus "tips." Which is horseshit to tip someone for doing their freaking job Tipping is really getting out of hand.....Used to be a tip was for exceptional service......Now we are expected to pay extra just to get them to do their job.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 28, 2013 9:25:42 GMT -5
Starbucks pays 8.25 plus "tips." Which is horseshit to tip someone for doing their freaking job Tipping is really getting out of hand.....Used to be a tip was for exceptional service......Now we are expected to pay extra just to get them to do their job. Well then don't tip them. They make tips because people put money in the jar. Nothing says you have to do so. I rarely tip outside of sit down restaurant service.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 9:36:39 GMT -5
Australia has its own issues. High unemployment, cradle to grave mentality, and huge crime. I wonder how much of that is tied to their economy? From what I can find, Australia's unemployment rate is about 5.8% (figure for August 2013). Rate of crime (overall) isn't as high there as here, either, as near as I can tell. Do you have sites with statistics to back up what you're positing, zib? Please post them, if you do. I'm short of time to really research. It's easy to toss out allegations if you figure no one is going to bother with fact checking. My search for Australia's unemployement came up with 5.8% (hardly "high"). I also found no statistics showing "huge" crime rates. Their gun violence rates are a fraction of ours; other rates seem to be comparable to ours.....
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Sept 28, 2013 10:24:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 8:09:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2013 11:07:47 GMT -5
Honestly? We get to judge people based on their 1700s ancestors now...
Prisoner ships brought early Americans too...
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Sept 28, 2013 11:40:54 GMT -5
The only way to keep employees off public assistance is to only hire people who will not need it. If you say none of your employees can collect any benefits then you wouldn't hire some people. Take a single parent of 3 small children who is a high school drop out with no skills what do you need to pay to keep them off WIC or food stamps? If you can hire a housewife for half as much why would you hire a single parent?
I worked at an egg packing plant one time. The employees were mostly farm wives with no education and only looking to work in the slow season for farming for money for property taxes and extras. If they earned minimum wage and it was the only income for the year they could have been on some benefits in a bad farming year or if widowed. How much should putting eggs in cartons pay? In a tiny town it was one of the few jobs a farm wife could get. Town people might land the grocery store job or other local jobs but farm wives weren't reliable workers since they had so much to do on the farm.
Someone who hires the less qualified workers is always going to see some getting benefits and if you make them pay more they will just hire better people leaving the less qualified unemployed.
If say every job had to pay $20 a person only worth $7 is going to be begging on street corners, living with parents, mowing lawns independently or finding other self employment.
A nearby sign says 22% drop out of high school. Not all are smart, sober, honest, hard working or other things an employer wants. Future dishwasher of America aren't worth a living wage so why would you hire one unless you can get them for less than someone better?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Sept 28, 2013 11:57:42 GMT -5
Somebody tried to tip my daughter who was running the register while I got set up for game night last night. She told them we don't take tips, and gave them back their full change. I was really proud. Then after they left she asked me how to enter a tip in our point of sale system... kids these days!
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 28, 2013 13:14:48 GMT -5
Honestly? We get to judge people based on their 1700s ancestors now... Prisoner ships brought early Americans too... Anything to detract from the simple fact that Australia's minimum wage is over $16/hr and their unemployment rate is 5.8% - thus debunking the oft asserted myth that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Sept 28, 2013 13:23:20 GMT -5
Honestly? We get to judge people based on their 1700s ancestors now... Prisoner ships brought early Americans too... Anything to detract from the simple fact that Australia's minimum wage is over $16/hr and their unemployment rate is 5.8% - thus debunking the oft asserted myth that raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. I have done no research but the first thing that comes to mind is how does that $16/hr compare to $16/hr in the us? What is their cost of living?
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,543
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Sept 28, 2013 13:26:15 GMT -5
According to Google, 1 Australian dollar equals .93 US Dollar.
|
|