LA to boost minimum wage to $15- again CA leads the nation

[kent]

May 21, 2015 14:29:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 14:25:38 GMT -5 kent said:

While I fully understand the SS and UE situation, what I'm saying is that if you need X dollars to maintain a living income, shouldn't it apply across the board?  If our "system" doesn't pay enough for somebody to live on, we are not doing those negatively impacted individuals and favors either. 

We can't have a "living" wage income that applies to only a portion of society and throw the rest under the bus.  "Living" should apply to everyone, no?

my point was that neither SSI or UI were supposed to be the SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME for the constituent group.

are you prepared to make the same case about FMW?

if not, you are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm having a hell of a time communicating my thoughts.  What I'm trying to say is that if we, as a culture, think people need an annual in come of $30,000 to maintain a non-poverty lifestyle, shouldn't that apply to EVERYONE?  If that's the collective philosophy, it shouldn't matter if someone "paid into the system" or not. 

So, look at their total income and then increase Social Security (or whatever benefit) by whatever it takes to reach that $30,000.  My suspicions are that when faced the cost of doing that (increased taxes), most people would say, screw the low income people - I'm for a living wage as long as it doesn't cost ME anything to get there - aka NIMBY.

When it comes to FMW, as noted, it would most likely have very little impact on prices initially.  It would, however, trigger others to demand the "spread" between their wages and the new FMW be recalculated - the old domino effect if you will.  As such, the cost of goods would increase over time for no reason other than to maintain some difference between those with few if any marketable skills and those that worked to improve their lot in life.  When the cost of goods ultimately increases there will be a renewed cry for an increase in the FMW and we will be off to the races again.  "Income Equality" is not going to work - why work your a$$ off to get somewhere only to have somebody that sat on their a$$ earn the same as you?

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 16:12:50 GMT -5 kent said:

May 21, 2015 14:29:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

my point was that neither SSI or UI were supposed to be the SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME for the constituent group.

are you prepared to make the same case about FMW?

if not, you are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm having a hell of a time communicating my thoughts.  What I'm trying to say is that if we, as a culture, think people need an annual in come of $30,000 to maintain a non-poverty lifestyle, shouldn't that apply to EVERYONE?  If that's the collective philosophy, it shouldn't matter if someone "paid into the system" or not. 

well, the FMW was originally set up as a LIVING WAGE.  and yes, i think everyone who is getting paid via wage should get a LIVING WAGE.  but no, i don't think this should apply to benefits.  benefits are SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME.

So, look at their total income and then increase Social Security (or whatever benefit) by whatever it takes to reach that $30,000.  My suspicions are that when faced the cost of doing that (increased taxes), most people would say, screw the low income people - I'm for a living wage as long as it doesn't cost ME anything to get there - aka NIMBY.

When it comes to FMW, as noted, it would most likely have very little impact on prices initially.  It would, however, trigger others to demand the "spread" between their wages and the new FMW be recalculated - the old domino effect if you will.  As such, the cost of goods would increase over time for no reason other than to maintain some difference between those with few if any marketable skills and those that worked to improve their lot in life.  When the cost of goods ultimately increases there will be a renewed cry for an increase in the FMW and we will be off to the races again.  "Income Equality" is not going to work - why work your a$$ off to get somewhere only to have somebody that sat on their a$$ earn the same as you?

no evidence that any of that is true, kent.  i mean, it SOUNDS rational, but if you review the history of FMW increases, you can't find much of an inflationary impact.  it is just a fact, and it is really easy to research.

edit: i am not suggesting that we have income equality, for the record.  i believe in meritocracy.

[NoNamePerson]

May 21, 2015 11:57:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 8:26:54 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

By 2020 a minimum wage of $20 - $25.00 hr will be needed for a living wage. Kinda slow with the increases if you ask me. People could still be on public assistance with $15.00 per hour. Have to assume states will have to raise the income level for poverty maybe??

70% increase in MW in (5) years is slow?  i am not sure the MW has done that in ANY FIVE YEAR PERIOD IN US HISTORY.

So? They need these increases every 5 years to keep people above poverty level - isn't that the point of all the MW increases? I'm aiming for a Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Clinton, and Bush level of living. I mean really why are some people allowed to be wealthy while others are only making $15 an hour?

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 17:51:13 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

May 21, 2015 11:57:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

70% increase in MW in (5) years is slow?  i am not sure the MW has done that in ANY FIVE YEAR PERIOD IN US HISTORY.

So? They need these increases every 5 years to keep people above poverty level - isn't that the point of all the MW increases? I'm aiming for a Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Clinton, and Bush level of living. I mean really why are some people allowed to be wealthy while others are only making $15 an hour?

i think they should index FMW to inflation.

as to the other question: meritocracy.  some people, due to what they do, and who they are, are worth more to a company than others.

[Angel!]

May 21, 2015 12:58:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 12:52:55 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Exactly- and that is one of the blatantly wrong arguments I was talking about- that somehow raising the floor causes a linear increase across the board so it really does nothing

it works that way in places where EVERYONE is making the minimum wage.  it doesn't work that way in places like this where less than 5% of US citizens make FMW.  the inflationary impact of FMW increases is MINIMAL.  in some cases, you can't even detect it relative to background inflation.

If we were talking about a quarter or even dollar increase, then this point would be valid. But we are talking about a raise for everyone making less than $15/hour. What percentage of people are being impacted now? I'm guessing this impacts 90% of people working in retail, food service, daycares, and probably a lot more I haven't considered. Overall I'm guessing that somewhere in the range of 35% of the people in country makes less than $15/hour.

You can't tell me my daycare costs aren't going to jump if most of the employees get a 50% raise.

I haven't really thought it through, but I also wonder the impact on education and low wage professions. Why go through school to become a social worker, teacher, etc if your income out of school isn't much better than what you make working at the Gap? There is likely more long term potential, but that is a lot of time, effort, and expense for no short term gains.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 20:05:30 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 21, 2015 12:58:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it works that way in places where EVERYONE is making the minimum wage.  it doesn't work that way in places like this where less than 5% of US citizens make FMW.  the inflationary impact of FMW increases is MINIMAL.  in some cases, you can't even detect it relative to background inflation.

If we were talking about a quarter or even dollar increase, then this point would be valid. But we are talking about a raise for everyone making less than $15/hour. What percentage of people are being impacted now? I'm guessing this impacts 90% of people working in retail, food service, daycares, and probably a lot more I haven't considered. Overall I'm guessing that somewhere in the range of 35% of the people in country makes less than $15/hour.

You can't tell me my daycare costs aren't going to jump if most of the employees get a 50% raise.

I haven't really thought it through, but I also wonder the impact on education and low wage professions. Why go through school to become a social worker, teacher, etc if your income out of school isn't much better than what you make working at the Gap? There is likely more long term potential, but that is a lot of time and effort for no short term gains.

i think all of your questions are interesting, but i also think they all have answers.  let me address the third one first.

people will always gravitate toward things like social work and teaching for the same reason that people gravitate toward being public defenders: because they love it.  if you love something, you will take next to nothing to do it.  i think the notion, which is often used, that people will only respond to the extrinsic motivation of big bucks is not only inaccurate, but kinda insulting.  most of my friends are musicians.  90% of them make below FMW for their work.  so, why don't they work in coffee shops?  there is a very simple answer to that, of course.  i already gave it.

i think your question about daycare is obvious and rhetorical.  you don't need me to answer it.

as to your first question, the median wage was around $14/hr two years ago.  therefore, just guessing, but an IMMEDIATE hike to $15/hr would impact about half of all employees.  but your figure of 50% is, of course, way off.  90% of the people making less than $15/hr right now are making more than FMW.  what are they making?  i don't know.  but if we assume a linear distribution, then the average wage increase IN THIS GROUP would be about 25%.  then the question would be: over what period of time?  i am thinking they would adopt a standard similar to LA = (5) years.  core inflation has grown an average of 3.5% for the last century.  therefore, the increase would average 1% beyond inflation during that period.  if we furthermore consider that wages impact prices with a sensitivity of somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50, it would probably add less than 0.5% to inflation during that period.

this is why i say that it is hard to see these changes relative to the economy IN THE TYPICAL CASE.  Obama's push for $10/hr would affect far fewer people, and would have a much smaller impact.

so, yeah, i think that the inflationary impact of such an increase is greatly overestimated, but as i have said many times on the board, i am not pushing for a FMW of $15/hr.  never have been, and probably won't in the time you see me on this board.

[Angel!]

May 21, 2015 20:17:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 20:05:30 GMT -5 Angel! said:

If we were talking about a quarter or even dollar increase, then this point would be valid. But we are talking about a raise for everyone making less than $15/hour. What percentage of people are being impacted now? I'm guessing this impacts 90% of people working in retail, food service, daycares, and probably a lot more I haven't considered. Overall I'm guessing that somewhere in the range of 35% of the people in country makes less than $15/hour.

You can't tell me my daycare costs aren't going to jump if most of the employees get a 50% raise.

I haven't really thought it through, but I also wonder the impact on education and low wage professions. Why go through school to become a social worker, teacher, etc if your income out of school isn't much better than what you make working at the Gap? There is likely more long term potential, but that is a lot of time and effort for no short term gains.

i think all of your questions are interesting, but i also think they all have answers.  let me address the third one first.

people will always gravitate toward things like social work and teaching for the same reason that people gravitate toward being public defenders: because they love it.  if you love something, you will take next to nothing to do it.  i think the notion, which is often used, that people will only respond to the extrinsic motivation of big bucks is not only inaccurate, but kinda insulting.  most of my friends are musicians.  90% of them make below FMW for their work.  so, why don't they work in coffee shops?  there is a very simple answer to that, of course.  i already gave it.

i think your question about daycare is obvious and rhetorical.  you don't need me to answer it.

as to your first question, the median wage was around $14/hr two years ago.  therefore, just guessing, but an IMMEDIATE hike to $15/hr would impact about half of all employees.  but your figure of 50% is, of course, way off.  90% of the people making less than $15/hr right now are making more than FMW.  what are they making?  i don't know.  but if we assume a linear distribution, then the average wage increase IN THIS GROUP would be about 25%.  then the question would be: over what period of time?  i am thinking they would adopt a standard similar to LA = (5) years.  core inflation has grown an average of 3.5% for the last century.  therefore, the increase would average 1% beyond inflation during that period.  if we furthermore consider that wages impact prices with a sensitivity of somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50, it would probably add less than 0.5% to inflation during that period.

this is why i say that it is hard to see these changes relative to the economy IN THE TYPICAL CASE.  Obama's push for $10/hr would affect far fewer people, and would have a much smaller impact.

so, yeah, i think that the inflationary impact of such an increase is greatly overestimated, but as i have said many times on the board, i am not pushing for a FMW of $15/hr.  never have been, and probably won't in the time you see me on this board.

The 50% increase was a literal example - at my kids daycare a lot of the teachers are paid in the vicinity of $10/hr. There is obviously variation based on experience, education, and your role. But still, if on average their pay goes up 50%, my costs probably jump 20%. Assuming slightly less than half the costs are labor, I have no idea the actual split.

On a personal level, that is a huge hit to my standard of living.

Between that and the fact that 50% of people get a raise (although a much smaller one for many), I just don't see this having a minimal impact on the standard of living for higher wage folks or costs of goods and services.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 20:58:41 GMT -5 Angel! said:

May 21, 2015 20:17:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think all of your questions are interesting, but i also think they all have answers.  let me address the third one first.

people will always gravitate toward things like social work and teaching for the same reason that people gravitate toward being public defenders: because they love it.  if you love something, you will take next to nothing to do it.  i think the notion, which is often used, that people will only respond to the extrinsic motivation of big bucks is not only inaccurate, but kinda insulting.  most of my friends are musicians.  90% of them make below FMW for their work.  so, why don't they work in coffee shops?  there is a very simple answer to that, of course.  i already gave it.

i think your question about daycare is obvious and rhetorical.  you don't need me to answer it.

as to your first question, the median wage was around $14/hr two years ago.  therefore, just guessing, but an IMMEDIATE hike to $15/hr would impact about half of all employees.  but your figure of 50% is, of course, way off.  90% of the people making less than $15/hr right now are making more than FMW.  what are they making?  i don't know.  but if we assume a linear distribution, then the average wage increase IN THIS GROUP would be about 25%.  then the question would be: over what period of time?  i am thinking they would adopt a standard similar to LA = (5) years.  core inflation has grown an average of 3.5% for the last century.  therefore, the increase would average 1% beyond inflation during that period.  if we furthermore consider that wages impact prices with a sensitivity of somewhere between 0.25 and 0.50, it would probably add less than 0.5% to inflation during that period.

this is why i say that it is hard to see these changes relative to the economy IN THE TYPICAL CASE.  Obama's push for $10/hr would affect far fewer people, and would have a much smaller impact.

so, yeah, i think that the inflationary impact of such an increase is greatly overestimated, but as i have said many times on the board, i am not pushing for a FMW of $15/hr.  never have been, and probably won't in the time you see me on this board.

The 50% increase was a literal example - at my kids daycare a lot of the teachers are paid in the vicinity of $10/hr. There is obviously variation based on experience, education, and your role. But still, if on average their pay goes up 50%, my costs probably jump 20%. Assuming slightly less than half the costs are labor, I have no idea the actual split.

i got all that.  but i was talking about the impact on the GENERAL ECONOMY, not your daycare, which i assumed you would know better than me.

On a personal level, that is a huge hit to my standard of living.

not if you are a daycare worker. 

Between that and the fact that 50% of people get a raise (although a much smaller one for many), I just don't see this having a minimal impact on the standard of living for higher wage folks or costs of goods and services.

i just pointed out the overall math.  it would add less than 1% to inflation.  things like energy cost, etc will be a bigger factor, imo.

your specific case might be different, but i prefer to be less myopic in my analysis.  after all,  even YOU won't need daycare forever. 

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 13:06:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've never understood the mind-set that says: "Joe Blow got a raise so I should get one, too."  That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're being paid enough to support your lifestyle, and are being paid what you agreed to accept for the position you hold, what difference does it make to you if the janitor gets a pay-raise? Personally, I'd be happy for the bloke, congratulate him, and move on. If you, on the other hand, aren't being paid what you believe you should be paid for the job you're doing, why haven't you done something about that problem before the janitor got his raise? The only thing that's really your responsibility is you, your pay, your lifestyle, and your ambitions. At least, that's how I see it.

Very few people go into a wage negotiation saying: "I need to make $X above Minimum Wage to work here."

Most people go into negotiations thinking "The economy (all things that relate to it, costs, other people's wages, MW, et cetera) is 'X', I have a standard of living that's 'Y' above that, so I need to earn 'Z'..." And then Minimum wage changes and that formula is now history (because 'X' is no longer what it was), and the negotiated salary no longer fits the formula.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 18:26:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 17:51:13 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

So? They need these increases every 5 years to keep people above poverty level - isn't that the point of all the MW increases? I'm aiming for a Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Clinton, and Bush level of living. I mean really why are some people allowed to be wealthy while others are only making $15 an hour?

i think they should index FMW to inflation.

as to the other question: meritocracy.  some people, due to what they do, and who they are, are worth more to a company than others.

And others, also "due to what they do" are worth more than CEO's and upper management at many (if not all) corporations... that doesn't mean that they get paid more than those CEO's and upper managers... does it?

[mmhmm]

Any job I ever took I took because it met my needs, including wage. What someone else makes had nothing to do with my decision. If I did my job well I expected to be rewarded over time. If I had not been adequately rewarded, I'd have left. At no time did anyone else's wage, minimum or otherwise, enter into my decision-making process.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 21:18:00 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 21, 2015 18:26:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think they should index FMW to inflation.

as to the other question: meritocracy.  some people, due to what they do, and who they are, are worth more to a company than others.

And others, also "due to what they do" are worth more than CEO's and upper management at many (if not all) corporations... that doesn't mean that they get paid more than those CEO's and upper managers... does it?

it certainly CAN.  and, imo, it SHOULD.  why it does NOT is a matter for discussion, and introspection on the part of corporations, imo.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Any job I ever took I took because it met my needs, including wage. What someone else makes had nothing to do with my decision. If I did my job well I expected to be rewarded over time. If I had not been adequately rewarded, I'd have left. At no time did anyone else's wage, minimum or otherwise, enter into my decision-making process.

precisely.  i have never measured my value against anyone else.  in fact, i have generally taken what was offered because i WANTED THE JOB.  that is why i was saying earlier that the free market is not a very good mechanism for this stuff.  societies can decide what wage meets the minimum economic standards, and demand that businesses pay that.  and then, everyone in that society will simply have to cope with that.  that is how it GENERALLY works.  for us to entertain the "race to the bottom" discussion is peculiar, and i think, lacking historical perspective.

i would explain that remark, but unfortunately, i have to go.  have a good evening.

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2015 11:59:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 9:32:58 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I wonder if the sweatshop sewing factories of the Los Angeles area will pay this wage?
Or well the sweat shops move to Mexico leaving seamstresses, out of work.
The McDonald's of the world will survive. The dollar menu simply becomes the $2 menu, and other businesses (mainly retail) raise prices more than what the new minimum wage will cost them, and the minimum wage workers are back to square one. We all recognize the brick mortar retail businesses are disappearing due to the internet, and now they will disappear a little sooner.
The companies that might actually produce something will falter, others will move, etc.

And we wind up Importing more foreign goods because the employment cost per employee grows wider with the USA. 
Carry on, nothing going on here........

you almost sound like you care about sweat shop jobs.

i don't.

what? only Democrats can worry about illegals in the USA?
I WAS ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN INDUSTRY RATHER THAN FAST FOODS OR HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY THAT COULD BE HURT BY A $15 MW.

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2015 13:06:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've never understood the mind-set that says: "Joe Blow got a raise so I should get one, too."  That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're being paid enough to support your lifestyle, and are being paid what you agreed to accept for the position you hold, what difference does it make to you if the janitor gets a pay-raise? Personally, I'd be happy for the bloke, congratulate him, and move on. If you, on the other hand, aren't being paid what you believe you should be paid for the job you're doing, why haven't you done something about that problem before the janitor got his raise? The only thing that's really your responsibility is you, your pay, your lifestyle, and your ambitions. At least, that's how I see it.

Your  career was as a nurse.
Were you unionized?
The union surely cared if whether Joe Blow in the medical field received a pay increase.
When it came to contract renewal, the union always had stats on what everyone else got, reasoning why their members deserved a new compensation rate based on that issue, job requirements, and inflation.
Not whether their members deserved it or not.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Any job I ever took I took because it met my needs, including wage. What someone else makes had nothing to do with my decision. If I did my job well I expected to be rewarded over time. If I had not been adequately rewarded, I'd have left. At no time did anyone else's wage, minimum or otherwise, enter into my decision-making process.

No argument there... but that wasn't necessarily what I was pointing out.

While how your wage compares to anyone else's may be irrelevant... how it compares with the ability to maintain your lifestyle pre-increase vs. post-increase is relevant.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The cost of employee to the employer do not end at strict salary. Los Angeles practically doubled the minimum wage, and even if the costs increase per employee are not as terrible as they seem, they are quite significant. According to CNN /Money Magazine the employer pays 25% on top of the straight salary. So if you double the minimum wage, you actually double that number too. It is quite significant. Bear in mind- ObamaCare is the law of the land, and though it has been illegally delayed, ignored, disobeyed, and unenforced until now- it will have to be altered by Congress, and signed by the President or it will HAVE TO go into full effect or be nullified soon.

money.cnn.com/.../28/smallbusiness/salary-benefits/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[Value Buy]

May 21, 2015 22:01:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The cost of employee to the employer do not end at strict salary. Los Angeles practically doubled the minimum wage, and even if the costs increase per employee are not as terrible as they seem, they are quite significant. According to CNN /Money Magazine the employer pays 25% on top of the straight salary. So if you double the minimum wage, you actually double that number too. It is quite significant. Bear in mind- ObamaCare is the law of the land, and though it has been illegally delayed, ignored, disobeyed, and unenforced until now- it will have to be altered by Congress, and signed by the President or it will HAVE TO go into full effect or be nullified soon.

money.cnn.com/.../28/smallbusiness/salary-benefits/

wait until the employees salaries go up and they lose some of the subsidy of health insurance duw to increase in income.
They will want $25 an hour.
Government is happy to see everyone making $15 an hour. It increases fica deduction collection, and possibly lowers earned income tax credit payouts.
The states get more tax income from the salary as well as more sales tax income.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 21:36:14 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2015 11:59:58 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you almost sound like you care about sweat shop jobs.

i don't.

what? only Democrats can worry about illegals in the USA?
I WAS ONLY USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF AN INDUSTRY RATHER THAN FAST FOODS OR HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY THAT COULD BE HURT BY A $15 MW.

if sweat shops are hurt by ANYTHING, we should REJOICE, VB.  that was my point, in case you missed it.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 22:06:25 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2015 22:01:16 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The cost of employee to the employer do not end at strict salary. Los Angeles practically doubled the minimum wage, and even if the costs increase per employee are not as terrible as they seem, they are quite significant. According to CNN /Money Magazine the employer pays 25% on top of the straight salary. So if you double the minimum wage, you actually double that number too. It is quite significant. Bear in mind- ObamaCare is the law of the land, and though it has been illegally delayed, ignored, disobeyed, and unenforced until now- it will have to be altered by Congress, and signed by the President or it will HAVE TO go into full effect or be nullified soon.

money.cnn.com/.../28/smallbusiness/salary-benefits/

wait until the employees salaries go up and they lose some of the subsidy of health insurance duw to increase in income.
They will want $25 an hour.
Government is happy to see everyone making $15 an hour. It increases fica deduction collection, and possibly lowers earned income tax credit payouts.
The states get more tax income from the salary as well as more sales tax income.

i have never been eligible for subsidies.  the ACA has actually not impacted my costs at all.

but i agree with you about the fact that raising FMW would decrease the amount of benefits that the government needs to pay out, and would increase revenues.  for me, this would be a desirable outcome- less people relying on uncle sugar, and more people paying for it means that it would be a LOT easier to balance budgets.  but, as i said before, apparently some people are perfectly comfortable burdening their grandchildren with debt.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 22:02:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

link please.  that seems like utter horseshit to me.

[mmhmm]

May 21, 2015 21:43:56 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 21, 2015 13:06:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I've never understood the mind-set that says: "Joe Blow got a raise so I should get one, too."  That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're being paid enough to support your lifestyle, and are being paid what you agreed to accept for the position you hold, what difference does it make to you if the janitor gets a pay-raise? Personally, I'd be happy for the bloke, congratulate him, and move on. If you, on the other hand, aren't being paid what you believe you should be paid for the job you're doing, why haven't you done something about that problem before the janitor got his raise? The only thing that's really your responsibility is you, your pay, your lifestyle, and your ambitions. At least, that's how I see it.

Your  career was as a nurse.
Were you unionized?
The union surely cared if whether Joe Blow in the medical field received a pay increase.
When it came to contract renewal, the union always had stats on what everyone else got, reasoning why their members deserved a new compensation rate based on that issue, job requirements, and inflation.
Not whether their members deserved it or not.

Nursing was my second career, and no - we weren't unionized. I don't care, therefore, what "the union" might think, or want. I make my decisions. I neither need, nor want a middle-man.

[mmhmm]

May 21, 2015 21:48:53 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 21, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Any job I ever took I took because it met my needs, including wage. What someone else makes had nothing to do with my decision. If I did my job well I expected to be rewarded over time. If I had not been adequately rewarded, I'd have left. At no time did anyone else's wage, minimum or otherwise, enter into my decision-making process.

No argument there... but that wasn't necessarily what I was pointing out.

While how your wage compares to anyone else's may be irrelevant... how it compares with the ability to maintain your lifestyle pre-increase vs. post-increase is relevant.

As I said, when I feel the compensation I'm receiving isn't enough for the job I'm doing it's up to me to take care of that problem. That's what I always did. You pay me what I'm worth to you or I walk. It's really very simple - or, I saw it as simple. Keeping myself on target and competitive within an organization was my responsibility. In my experience, corporations/hospitals - whatever - recognized what I was doing and what I would or would not do. If they wanted me, they'd keep me.

[EVT1]

May 22, 2015 1:16:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 22:02:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

link please.  that seems like utter horseshit to me.

That is horseshit   Brought to you by "unbiased Americe"

[Value Buy]

May 22, 2015 1:15:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 22:06:25 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

wait until the employees salaries go up and they lose some of the subsidy of health insurance duw to increase in income.
They will want $25 an hour.
Government is happy to see everyone making $15 an hour. It increases fica deduction collection, and possibly lowers earned income tax credit payouts.
The states get more tax income from the salary as well as more sales tax income.

i have never been eligible for subsidies.  the ACA has actually not impacted my costs at all.

but i agree with you about the fact that raising FMW would decrease the amount of benefits that the government needs to pay out, and would increase revenues.  for me, this would be a desirable outcome- less people relying on uncle sugar, and more people paying for it means that it would be a LOT easier to balance budgets.  but, as i said before, apparently some people are perfectly comfortable burdening their grandchildren with debt.

I was not thinking from the business side of the issue on the ACA. I am saying it comes from the worker's subsidy.
People with impossibly low incomes who get a boost in income are expected to pay a higher percentage of the insurance premium the next year. Their increase in income is eaten up in higher insurance premiums and taxes.

As far as increased income for the government agencies, in this example the increase in revenue is coming from the poor, rather than the 1% , thus strictly against the public message of the left and the President.

[Tennesseer]

May 22, 2015 1:16:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 21, 2015 22:02:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

link please.  that seems like utter horseshit to me.

Unbiased America (Facebook)

[Angel!]

May 21, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Any job I ever took I took because it met my needs, including wage. What someone else makes had nothing to do with my decision. If I did my job well I expected to be rewarded over time. If I had not been adequately rewarded, I'd have left. At no time did anyone else's wage, minimum or otherwise, enter into my decision-making process.

How can someone else's wage not enter your decision making process? If you know the average nurse in your hospital with x years experience earns $y, then it seems like you should surely care that you are being adequately paid in comparison to your peers.

I know I care what others make so that I can gauge if I am fairly paid. I can't just decide my own worth without knowing economic factors at play and the worth of others. Otherwise I could just make up some number as my worth and then either never find a job or spend my entire career underpaid.

[djAdvocate]

May 22, 2015 8:25:53 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 22, 2015 1:15:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i have never been eligible for subsidies.  the ACA has actually not impacted my costs at all.

but i agree with you about the fact that raising FMW would decrease the amount of benefits that the government needs to pay out, and would increase revenues.  for me, this would be a desirable outcome- less people relying on uncle sugar, and more people paying for it means that it would be a LOT easier to balance budgets.  but, as i said before, apparently some people are perfectly comfortable burdening their grandchildren with debt.

I was not thinking from the business side of the issue on the ACA. I am saying it comes from the worker's subsidy.
People with impossibly low incomes who get a boost in income are expected to pay a higher percentage of the insurance premium the next year. Their increase in income is eaten up in higher insurance premiums and taxes.

As far as increased income for the government agencies, in this example the increase in revenue is coming from the poor, rather than the 1% , thus strictly against the public message of the left and the President.

and i should care about this, why?

my goal is to keep people off the dole, give a shot in the arm to the working poor, and balance budgets.  how would raising FMW not accomplish those goals?

[djAdvocate]

May 22, 2015 3:12:37 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

May 22, 2015 1:16:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

link please.  that seems like utter horseshit to me.

That is horseshit   Brought to you by "unbiased Americe"

seems like it.  i can see several problems with it, without even looking at the data.