EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 19, 2015 20:54:33 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2015 23:22:20 GMT -5
seems like a good move for LA.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 0:01:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 23:37:22 GMT -5
I had dinner at a Seattle restaurant a couple weeks ago & one of the the lines on the bill was a "living wage surcharge". It didn't say what wage they were paying (did they implement the $15 or are they on the staggered plan?). It added something like 78 cents to the bill.
I thought it was interesting, but it did make me wonder whether I wanted to be tipping if the employees were earning $15 an hour! I decided I needed to understand which wage they were paying before making that decision. But honestly, if they are at $15/hour I really don't think tipping is needed on top of that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2015 23:39:53 GMT -5
I had dinner at a Seattle restaurant a couple weeks ago & one of the the lines on the bill was a "living wage surcharge". It didn't say what wage they were paying (did they implement the $15 or are they on the staggered plan?). It added something like 78 cents to the bill. I thought it was interesting, but it did make me wonder whether I wanted to be tipping if the employees were earning $15 an hour! I decided I needed to understand which wage they were paying before making that decision. But honestly, if they are at $15/hour I really don't think tipping is needed on top of that. i concurr, actually.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 20, 2015 1:21:46 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
What I am going to post here possible has nothing to do with todays world of business in the USA but will post it anyway and possible some might want to kick in with some comments... This is a true story...As a kid growing up in Hamden , Connecticut , my dad owned a ..what would one call it..a retail store slling stationary, toys, patent medicines, cosmetics and what wetre called "sundries "..everything from tobacco items..candy etc ..everything but RX..the store was not a drug store so no RX's..Dad and Mom, and as I grew older , after school, Saturdays..all worked in the store..One full time worker..my uncle Irving and store was opened six days ..closed Sunday..9 to 9...Had one high school after school worker..Jimmy Sette.. Minimum wage at the time was .50 per hour....When the Minimum wage went to .75 my dad had to letr Jimmy go...couldn't afford him any longer..I think I started working after school most days..nope didn't get paid per say...was slipped a few bucks as needed ..it was the way it was back then.. I wonder how many small Mom Pops ..and there are many today...usually convience stores..will be in the same situation as Dad was then ..naturally $ are different but everything is relative...just a thought...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on May 21, 2015 6:40:50 GMT -5
Servers in high minimum wage areas love customers from other states because they still tip high thinking the server is making 2-3 bucks an hour. In Oregon they're lucky to get ten per cent of the tab. Because Oregon residents know they're making 8-9 bucks an hour.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on May 21, 2015 6:49:38 GMT -5
Servers in high minimum wage areas love customers from other states because they still tip high thinking the server is making 2-3 bucks an hour. In Oregon they're lucky to get ten per cent of the tab. Because Oregon residents know they're making 8-9 bucks an hour. Thats fine by me..the consumer...I tip 20% plus a bit ..depending....but in talking to servers..plenty of folks still don't tip or give as it it is 40 years ago...South Florida..so many seniors..still think it's years ago instead of today.. Let them, servers, get higher hourly and I then will tip for service..thats just me...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 21, 2015 7:34:26 GMT -5
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,731
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on May 21, 2015 8:26:54 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
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 ??
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 21, 2015 8:31:49 GMT -5
Holy crap. If min wage is supposed to be 20 in five years I'm going to have to get a big increase to compensate!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on May 21, 2015 9:32:58 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
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 ?? 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........
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 21, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5
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 ?? 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........ This is the part I don't understand as well. Raise everyone's wages and costs go up accordingly. How does help a low wage worker? They are back to square one. Not completely because it won't be a dollar for dollar increase. But we can't double wages and think that won't increase the prices of goods and services or alternatively leave a lot more unemployed. If anything this just comes closer to leveling the playing field. They get more purchasing power, but I lose some. Now if this primarily happens in very HCOL areas, it may not be as much of an impact. I don't see this going well in LCOL areas though. If you are low income disabled or senior citizen, then a wage hike like this that will ultimately raise prices will leave you screwed.
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on May 21, 2015 11:13:10 GMT -5
If $30,000 per year us needed to provide a "living wage," doesn't that same concept spread to people on fixed incomes? Shouldn't Social Security be raised to a minimum of $30,000 per year so those recipients can "live" as well? Shouldn't Unemployment benefits be raised to $30,000 per year? State Disability benefits? Any and all government payments?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 11:51:32 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
What I am going to post here possible has nothing to do with todays world of business in the USA but will post it anyway and possible some might want to kick in with some comments... This is a true story...As a kid growing up in Hamden , Connecticut , my dad owned a ..what would one call it..a retail store slling stationary, toys, patent medicines, cosmetics and what wetre called "sundries "..everything from tobacco items..candy etc ..everything but RX..the store was not a drug store so no RX's..Dad and Mom, and as I grew older , after school, Saturdays..all worked in the store..One full time worker..my uncle Irving and store was opened six days ..closed Sunday..9 to 9...Had one high school after school worker..Jimmy Sette.. Minimum wage at the time was .50 per hour....When the Minimum wage went to .75 my dad had to letr Jimmy go...couldn't afford him any longer..I think I started working after school most days..nope didn't get paid per say...was slipped a few bucks as needed ..it was the way it was back then.. I wonder how many small Mom Pops ..and there are many today...usually convience stores..will be in the same situation as Dad was then ..naturally $ are different but everything is relative...just a thought... FMW does not apply to the non-adult children of owners. if my son works for me, i can pay him whatever i like.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 11:55:47 GMT -5
the UE rate in Oakland is 6.2%, which is 0.5% BELOW the state as a whole. San Francisco, which is FAR MORE LIBERAL THAN OAKLAND and has a FAR HIGHER MW is currently at 3.8% UE. so, i think your assertions about UE -vs- MW are utter rubbish, Paul. i can't speak for Seattle, but don can.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 11:57:01 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-city-council-votes-15-minimum-wage-204727244.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles City Council gave initial approval Tuesday to raising minimum pay in the nation's second-largest city to $15 an hour by 2020, a key step as wages in America have stagnated. If enacted, Los Angeles would join Seattle and San Francisco as some of the largest cities in the nation with phased-in minimum wage laws that eventually require annual pay of about $31,200. The Los Angeles council voted 14-1 after residents made impassioned statements for and against the plan that would progressively bump up the wage from the current $9 an hour, also the minimum for California.
And of course the same stale and blatantly wrong arguments are being tossed around- it amazes me so many people oppose this. I could understand if they had a valid point to make but they don't. One of the quotes was that the margins are too small in some of these businesses to handle the increase Whatever will they do........
Read a comment where some lady was complaining that she is pissed she spent so much getting a masters so she could be a librarian when she could have just cooked fries for 30K and not have to work as hard I am sure being a librarian is exhausting compared to working the lunch rush and doing fun jobs like cleaning toilets and taking out the trash. Well I am sure you can find someone to swap jobs with you.
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.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 11:59:58 GMT -5
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 ?? 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.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 12:04:31 GMT -5
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........ This is the part I don't understand as well. Raise everyone's wages and costs go up accordingly. How does help a low wage worker? They are back to square one. Not completely because it won't be a dollar for dollar increase. But we can't double wages and think that won't increase the prices of goods and services or alternatively leave a lot more unemployed. If anything this just comes closer to leveling the playing field. They get more purchasing power, but I lose some. Now if this primarily happens in very HCOL areas, it may not be as much of an impact. I don't see this going well in LCOL areas though. If you are low income disabled or senior citizen, then a wage hike like this that will ultimately raise prices will leave you screwed. the sensitivity of inflation to FMW increases is quite low. it is not only not dollar for dollar, i believe that it is pennies per dollar. someone recently posted a study done by a VERY CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. it had all kinds of erronious assumptions in it, such that all wages within restaurants would follow changes in FMW. in other words, if we doubled FMW, everyone's pay in the industry would double (which is false). even using that really silly assumption, a doubling of FMW would result in a 10% increase in Happy Meal prices. 10:1. the assumption that people that work in fast food restaurants eat fast food might also be faulty. if they have to pay for it, they might choose beans and rice, which would doubtless be better for them, and not subject to the same inflation as hamburgers. this might also be a good time to point out that beef prices are off the hook. they have gone up WAY MORE than wages in the last couple of years, yet nobody seems to be suggesting that the market won't bear those prices.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 12:15:51 GMT -5
If $30,000 per year us needed to provide a "living wage," doesn't that same concept spread to people on fixed incomes? Shouldn't Social Security be raised to a minimum of $30,000 per year so those recipients can "live" as well? Shouldn't Unemployment benefits be raised to $30,000 per year? State Disability benefits? Any and all government payments? social security is a pay as you go system. it is neither required nor desirable to have it pay out more than it takes in. UE is a bridge fund. it is actually not intended as income replacement, but to keep people from losing their homes while they are either looking for a suitable replacement job, or unable to find work. i think a good case could be made for SDI, however. if we are not paying a disabled person enough to live on, we are really not doing them any favors.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 21, 2015 12:52:55 GMT -5
the sensitivity of inflation to FMW increases is quite low. it is not only not dollar for dollar, i believe that it is pennies per dollar. someone recently posted a study done by a VERY CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. it had all kinds of erronious assumptions in it, such that all wages within restaurants would follow changes in FMW. in other words, if we doubled FMW, everyone's pay in the industry would double (which is false). even using that really silly assumption, a doubling of FMW would result in a 10% increase in Happy Meal prices. 10:1. the assumption that people that work in fast food restaurants eat fast food might also be faulty. if they have to pay for it, they might choose beans and rice, which would doubtless be better for them, and not subject to the same inflation as hamburgers. this might also be a good time to point out that beef prices are off the hook. they have gone up WAY MORE than wages in the last couple of years, yet nobody seems to be suggesting that the market won't bear those prices. 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
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 12:58:11 GMT -5
the sensitivity of inflation to FMW increases is quite low. it is not only not dollar for dollar, i believe that it is pennies per dollar. someone recently posted a study done by a VERY CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK. it had all kinds of erronious assumptions in it, such that all wages within restaurants would follow changes in FMW. in other words, if we doubled FMW, everyone's pay in the industry would double (which is false). even using that really silly assumption, a doubling of FMW would result in a 10% increase in Happy Meal prices. 10:1. the assumption that people that work in fast food restaurants eat fast food might also be faulty. if they have to pay for it, they might choose beans and rice, which would doubtless be better for them, and not subject to the same inflation as hamburgers. this might also be a good time to point out that beef prices are off the hook. they have gone up WAY MORE than wages in the last couple of years, yet nobody seems to be suggesting that the market won't bear those prices. 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.
|
|
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 May 21, 2015 13:06:26 GMT -5
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.
|
|
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 May 21, 2015 13:22:12 GMT -5
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. But mmhmm - isn't that part of what we're discussing? I really don't think it's too hard of an argument to make when I say someone who's been working in certain jobs (fast food etc) for years without acquiring new skills don't have much ambition. If people were working to make themselves more valuable, wouldn't they go and do something about their "problem" rather than saying we have to legislate a raise? In college one job I worked was in the cafeteria because it was EASY to get as many hours as I wanted. Within two months of starting I learned how to run the grill, fryers, and the dish room including breaking down and sanitizing the dish machine and conveyors. Within four months I was able to man he snack bar (short order) by myself including closing and opening. There were full time employees who had been there years (some decades) who never bothered to learn how to do some of the cross functions. It really wasn't that hard. Heck, I see that even in my profession. Someone gets too specialized, can do only one thing (like only sales taxes or personal property taxes) does the same thing for years without taking on anything new, then wonders why their raises (if any) are so small.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 13:51:31 GMT -5
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. But mmhmm - isn't that part of what we're discussing? I really don't think it's too hard of an argument to make when I say someone who's been working in certain jobs (fast food etc) for years without acquiring new skills don't have much ambition. If people were working to make themselves more valuable, wouldn't they go and do something about their "problem" rather than saying we have to legislate a raise? In college one job I worked was in the cafeteria because it was EASY to get as many hours as I wanted. Within two months of starting I learned how to run the grill, fryers, and the dish room including breaking down and sanitizing the dish machine and conveyors. Within four months I was able to man he snack bar (short order) by myself including closing and opening. There were full time employees who had been there years (some decades) who never bothered to learn how to do some of the cross functions. It really wasn't that hard. Heck, I see that even in my profession. Someone gets too specialized, can do only one thing (like only sales taxes or personal property taxes) does the same thing for years without taking on anything new, then wonders why their raises (if any) are so small. Captain- would you be OK with lowering FMW to 1/3 of poverty line?
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on May 21, 2015 14:25:38 GMT -5
If $30,000 per year us needed to provide a "living wage," doesn't that same concept spread to people on fixed incomes? Shouldn't Social Security be raised to a minimum of $30,000 per year so those recipients can "live" as well? Shouldn't Unemployment benefits be raised to $30,000 per year? State Disability benefits? Any and all government payments? social security is a pay as you go system. it is neither required nor desirable to have it pay out more than it takes in. UE is a bridge fund. it is actually not intended as income replacement, but to keep people from losing their homes while they are either looking for a suitable replacement job, or unable to find work. i think a good case could be made for SDI, however. if we are not paying a disabled person enough to live on, we are really not doing them any favors. 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?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 14:29:03 GMT -5
social security is a pay as you go system. it is neither required nor desirable to have it pay out more than it takes in. UE is a bridge fund. it is actually not intended as income replacement, but to keep people from losing their homes while they are either looking for a suitable replacement job, or unable to find work. i think a good case could be made for SDI, however. if we are not paying a disabled person enough to live on, we are really not doing them any favors. 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.
|
|
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 May 21, 2015 14:30:34 GMT -5
djAdvocate - I'm not sure there should be a correlation between the two. But then again, I'm pretty sure you and I don't necessarily agree on letting a free market set wages. The poverty line is determined by the number of people in a household. I will be the first to state the simple ability to have children does not inherently increase your worth to an employer. Acquiring new skills or being very good at your job is what brings value. Is a cashier with 4 kids worth more to the employer than the cashier with no kids? The poverty line is used to determine many things, most notably setting limits for access to various Federal and State assistance programs. It should not, IMHO, be used as a measure for setting FMW. Creating a high minimum will only force more workers onto federal assistance programs as employers will turn to automation because payroll costs will be higher than the cost of automating. In addition, I think it will create an even larger underground economy than already exists in LA. You raise the minimum, people will just be more willing to work off the books for less then that amount as long as they don't pay taxes. Look up underground economy. I can't help but think this is only going to make it worse. www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/03/18/the-new-underground-economy
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 14:34:01 GMT -5
djAdvocate - I'm not sure there should be a correlation between the two. But then again, I'm pretty sure you and I don't necessarily agree on letting a free market set wages. i will answer that, shortly. my question is whether, if in a free market, wages are 1/3 that of poverty wages, that this would be something that you would consider a DESIRABLE outcome.The poverty line is determined by the number of people in a household. you are muddying the question. i meant it ONLY for a SINGLE PERSON. FMW applies to INDIVIDUALS, not FAMILIES. please try again. tyia.
|
|
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 May 21, 2015 14:55:31 GMT -5
djAdvocate - I'm not sure there should be a correlation between the two. But then again, I'm pretty sure you and I don't necessarily agree on letting a free market set wages. i will answer that, shortly. my question is whether, if in a free market, wages are 1/3 that of poverty wages, that this would be something that you would consider a DESIRABLE outcome.The poverty line is determined by the number of people in a household. you are muddying the question. i meant it ONLY for a SINGLE PERSON. FMW applies to INDIVIDUALS, not FAMILIES. please try again. tyia. TYIA? (Thank you in advance? Not familiar with that one - did I guess right?) I'm honestly trying not the muddy the question - you were the one who mentioned the poverty line with respect to FMW. Quite simply, I think it's a bit too complex for a simple answer. Do I believe good hard work has value, no matter how simple it may be? Of course. However I also know that if we raise the minimum employers have to pay, less people will be employed. So where is the tipping point? At what point do we reach equilibrium? I don't think it's at $15 but I do think it's more than $8. I also think single actions like this, without a cohesive plan, create more problems than they solve. How many people make a living these days picking corn by hand? Soybeans? Even apples are now started to be harvested by machine. All of that is work that used to employ thousands (if not tens of thousands) in the past, jobs now gone because it's cheaper to do so with machines rather than with humans. You also see the impact of automation in assembly line manufacturing (what's left of it) in the US. When ACA was passed we heard a lot of stories of people who got their hours cut because they didn't want to be considered full time by their employers (I think it was lowered to 30?). I can see this having an even greater impact. Personally, I think people would feel better about themselves if they are working to bringing something home (even if it's supplemented with aid) as opposed to not working at all. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. But my sense is- this will make it harder for those at the bottom of the economic ladder to even get a job. Do we really consider that a good thing?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,165
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 21, 2015 15:00:55 GMT -5
you are muddying the question. i meant it ONLY for a SINGLE PERSON. FMW applies to INDIVIDUALS, not FAMILIES. please try again. tyia. TYIA? (Thank you in advance? Not familiar with that one - did I guess right?) YES!!!!I'm honestly trying not the muddy the question - you were the one who mentioned the poverty line with respect to FMW. in that case, i am sorry i wasn't clear.Quite simply, I think it's a bit too complex for a simple answer. Do I believe good hard work has value, no matter how simple it may be? Of course. However I also know that if we raise the minimum employers have to pay, less people will be employed. you know that? how do you know that? because there is actually no statistical evidence to bear this out.So where is the tipping point? At what point do we reach equilibrium? I don't think it's at $15 but I do think it's more than $8. I also think single actions like this, without a cohesive plan, create more problems than they solve. How many people make a living these days picking corn by hand? Soybeans? Even apples are now started to be harvested by machine. All of that is work that used to employ thousands (if not tens of thousands) in the past, jobs now gone because it's cheaper to do so with machines rather than with humans. You also see the impact of automation in assembly line manufacturing (what's left of it) in the US. When ACA was passed we heard a lot of stories of people who got their hours cut because they didn't want to be considered full time by their employers (I think it was lowered to 30?). I can see this having an even greater impact. Personally, I think people would feel better about themselves if they are working to bringing something home (even if it's supplemented with aid) as opposed to not working at all. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. But my sense is- this will make it harder for those at the bottom of the economic ladder to even get a job. Do we really consider that a good thing? what is the incentive to work if you can't even stay housed and fed doing it? there is no dignity in starving.the question i was trying to ask is one that is NEVER asked, imo. the argument made on the right is that the government should not be in the business of dictating wages. fine. let's assume they get out of that business, and let the "free market" take over. let's say that the free market pushes wages down to 1/3 of poverty level for entry level employees. that would be $2/hr, if you are wondering. DO YOU THINK THIS IS A DESIRABLE OUTCOME? edit: i know this is hypothetical, but so is the idea that raising MW will lower employment, and so is the idea that the free market will dictate the best possible outcome for our society. so, please consider this hypothetical as equal to or greater than the other hypotheticals being discussed.
|
|