Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gap GuiltFollow

#52 Feb 27 2014 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,639 posts
Here's an idea-- let's ignore the minimum wage and let it stay where it's at. Meanwhile the price of every day living continues to rise.

How is the "middle class" not affected when minimum wage workers need to steal the mufflers off their cars to pay their rent?
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#53 Feb 27 2014 at 9:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
Here's an idea-- let's ignore the minimum wage and let it stay where it's at. Meanwhile the price of every day living continues to rise.

How is the "middle class" not affected when minimum wage workers need to steal the mufflers off their cars to pay their rent?


Wont happen. Ok. Won't happen any more than right now. Normal wages will rise as cost of living rises, regardless of whether the government sets or raises a minimum wage. The overwhelming majority of workers earn more than minimum wage. 95.3% based on recent BLS data. Of the 4.7% who earn minimum wage, half of them are below the age of 25. Half of them (but not necessarily the same half) worked in leisure and hospitality, most of them in restaurants and food service (where the numbers are a bit skewed because they get tips that compensate for earning less than minimum wage).

If anything, what would happen if minimum wage were allowed to stay static while inflation continues to increase over time is that the percent of workers earning minimum wage will decrease. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Fewer people earning the "bare minimum allowed by law", right?

But to directly address your question, if we raise minimum wage dramatically, as suggested, one of two things will happen:

1. Cost of living will adjust to the new minimum. So those at the bottom wont really gain anything, but you'll grow that bottom because all the folks who were earning more than the previous minimum but less than or equal to the new one will now be earning minimum wage. They'll be harmed because costs of living has increased, but their wages didn't (or didn't increase as much). Net result is negative for most and a break even for the 4.7% of workers who earned minimum wage previously.

2. Cost of living doesn't adjust, which means that wages for many entry level positions are just plain higher than the costs of the goods produced can justify. This will result in fewer entry level jobs. Which means that the guy who might have otherwise earned minimum wage is now unemployed. So, more likely to have to steal to get by than he would have been other wise.



There are no really good reasons to raise minimum wage. It's a fake issue that liberals toss around because it sounds good on the surface level, and they know that they can easily demonize those of us with enough sense to realize it's a bad idea. It's easy to just label anyone opposed to increasing minimum wage a hater, right? It's a lot harder to explain why raising minimum wage doesn't really help low income people, and will generally hurt them instead.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 27 2014 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
And if we ignore all of the different things that can hurt people without causing the country to end, then you might have a point.
Well, as long as there are commercials that make you sad in the pants we know that won't happen. Do as you say, not as you do as it were.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Feb 27 2014 at 9:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And if we ignore all of the different things that can hurt people without causing the country to end, then you might have a point.
Well, as long as there are commercials that make you sad in the pants we know that won't happen. Do as you say, not as you do as it were.


Dude. That's even more nonsensical than usual. WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Feb 27 2014 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's even more nonsensical than usual.
I guess it would be nonsense for someone who is accustomed to being told how to think and behave.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 Feb 27 2014 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
TIL more people having money weakens the middle class. LOOOOOOL.

Please see my last post ITT for more clarity.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#58 Feb 27 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
I still like the idea of pegging to inflation so you don't have to have these silly debates every 5 years.

Does wonders for that kind of thing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#59 Feb 27 2014 at 9:49 PM Rating: Decent
someproteinguy wrote:
I still like the idea of pegging to inflation so you don't have to have these silly debates every 5 years.

Does wonders for that kind of thing.


Thats what i like about the socialist country of Canada. We get increases to min wage everytime the inflation rate goes up a certain amount. We are getting a bump up to 11 bucks this year. Not bad for flipping burgers.

Granted its still about 15% below where it should be ideally but even great systems can't be perfect.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#60 Feb 27 2014 at 9:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
5,639 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
Here's an idea-- let's ignore the minimum wage and let it stay where it's at. Meanwhile the price of every day living continues to rise.

How is the "middle class" not affected when minimum wage workers need to steal the mufflers off their cars to pay their rent?


Wont happen. Ok. Won't happen any more than right now. Normal wages will rise as cost of living rises, regardless of whether the government sets or raises a minimum wage. The overwhelming majority of workers earn more than minimum wage. 95.3% based on recent BLS data .


Yeah. Almost NO ONE actually makes minimum wage. They make 1-25 cents more so we can claim 95.3% are just fine and dandy and won't benefit at all from a higher minimum.

I'm too tired to attempt to wade through whatever else you said. I'm sure I'm not missing anything.


The bottom line is, if you get a job that starts you at or NEAR minimum wage, you MORE THAN LIKELY are not going to double, triple, quadruple your pay, or come anything even close to that-- not after any amount of hard work or years of sucking the boss's **** In fact, most places that pay wages that low don't even expect to keep you for more than one or two years. They are counting on you to realize what a waste of **** time the job is so they can replace you with someone young and naive who will take one or two years to become complacent and/or completely disgruntled.

At this point, having a low wage job, whether it is ACTUALLY minimum wage or close to it, is not even worthwhile. People only work these jobs until they can't take it anymore, or realize what a sucker they've been. This is no way to run a business, no matter how you look at it.

Edited, Feb 28th 2014 7:00am by Kuwoobie
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#61 Feb 27 2014 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I still like the idea of pegging to inflation so you don't have to have these silly debates every 5 years.

Does wonders for that kind of thing.


Thats what i like about the socialist country of Canada. We get increases to min wage everytime the inflation rate goes up a certain amount. We are getting a bump up to 11 bucks this year. Not bad for flipping burgers.

Granted its still about 15% below where it should be ideally but even great systems can't be perfect.
We're up to $9.10 or something like that, it's just nice to not have to worry about it. There's less of a push for raising it, and less of a push saying it's too high. We agreed (more or less) on the amount years ago, and just make sure it stays at the same relative level.

Problem solved.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#62 Feb 27 2014 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
TIL more people having money weakens the middle class. LOOOOOOL.


Arbitrarily raising the wages of entry level workers above what the market will naturally pay them *does*. I know that it's hard for some people to grasp this, but it really does. Not just the middle class. Everyone is harmed.

Quote:
Please see my last post ITT for more clarity.


Yes. You are quite clearly stating things that are incorrect. There is no reason to have a minimum wage. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's a myth invented by western socialists to help increase their base of support. Ironically by making more people poor. The objective is specifically to destroy the middle class and a minimum wage is one of the methods used to do that. When you raise the bottom, you destroy any upward mobility below the rate at which you're raising the minimum wage *and* you increase inflation so as to reduce the relative value of wages higher than that (the middle class).

You don't make the poor richer. You make everyone a little bit poorer. I know that this is hard to understand. It seems simplistic to just say that if people earn more money then they're better off, but money doesn't work that way. And wages really don't work that way. The total amount of money available for compensation in any business is going to be a function of revenue. If you increase the minimum, then you either have to raise revenue to match (ie: raise the price of your product), find a way to reduce your workforce, or adjust wages elsewhere (compress the middle basically).

I've explained this before. A store owner can afford to pay the single mom assistant manager $15/hour because he's only paying the high school kids working the counter $5/hour. Raising minimum wage causes wages to flatten within a given range of that minimum. Add in a sprinkle of inflation and the assistant manager job that used to pay enough to support a single mother (if barely) now doesn't. Multiply that by thousand of workplaces that employ workers at the low end of the wage scale, and you're **** over a **** of a lot of people so that some high school kids get more fun money. It's a terrible idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Feb 27 2014 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
The bottom line is, if you get a job that starts you at or NEAR minimum wage, you MORE THAN LIKELY are not going to double, triple, quadruple your pay, or come anything even close to that-- not after any amount of hard work or years of sucking the boss's **** In fact, most places that pay wages that low don't even expect to keep you for more than one or two years. They are counting on you to realize what a waste of @#%^ing time the job is so they can replace you with someone young and naive who will take one or two years to become complacent and/or completely disgruntled.


Yup. That's the point. Those jobs pay very little because the output of them isn't that valuable. Those who want to earn more will gravitate away from those jobs, right?

Raise the wage for flipping burgers to $15/hour and more people will stay flipping burgers instead of leaving that job and seeking one with greater advancement (and more value to the economy as a whole). That's part of the problem, and yet another way that it weakens rather than strengthens the middle class. If more people stay at those crappy jobs because we've made it so that they can earn good money there, then fewer people will ever become middle class.

As I keep saying, the reasons not to have a minimum wage at all are massive. The reasons to have one, much less try to raise it to a "living wage" level are right around zero.

Quote:
At this point, having a low wage job, whether it is ACTUALLY minimum wage or close to it, is not even worthwhile.


Yes. That's because what the job does isn't worth much. We want to discourage people staying in low productive jobs. Anything which does the opposite is a bad thing.

Quote:
People only work these jobs until they can't take it anymore, or realize what a sucker they've been. This is no way to run a business, no matter how you look at it.


It's not about the owner **** people over. It's about the product of the labor not being worth that much. The day people will pay $30 for a burger at McDonalds is the day that McDonalds can pay its burger flippers $15/hour. Get it? Wages are relative to the value of what the labor actually does. Arbitrarily raising the wage doesn't make the thing the wage is paid for more valuable. It just makes it more expensive. And, as I keep saying, one of two things will happen:

1. The labor costs become higher than people will pay for the product the labor makes, and the business will fold and the labor will become unemployed.

2. Inflation will occur, nullifying any value of the increased wage to minimum earners, but retaining the harmful effects to everyone who's wage wasn't raised.


Um... I suppose there can be some combination of those two things. Point being that it's all bad. Aside from just a knee jerk "but we should pay people more" rationale, can you actually tell me why you think this is a good idea? Cause I've listed off like 3-4 very simple and obvious negative effects. Are there any positives? I just don't see it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Feb 27 2014 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see it.
The benefits of never having to think for yourself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 Feb 27 2014 at 10:47 PM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
TIL more people having money weakens the middle class. LOOOOOOL.


Arbitrarily raising the wages of entry level workers above what the market will naturally pay them *does*. I know that it's hard for some people to grasp this, but it really does. Not just the middle class. Everyone is harmed.

Quote:
Please see my last post ITT for more clarity.


Yes. You are quite clearly stating things that are incorrect. There is no reason to have a minimum wage. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. It's a myth invented by western socialists to help increase their base of support. Ironically by making more people poor. The objective is specifically to destroy the middle class and a minimum wage is one of the methods used to do that. When you raise the bottom, you destroy any upward mobility below the rate at which you're raising the minimum wage *and* you increase inflation so as to reduce the relative value of wages higher than that (the middle class).

You don't make the poor richer. You make everyone a little bit poorer. I know that this is hard to understand. It seems simplistic to just say that if people earn more money then they're better off, but money doesn't work that way. And wages really don't work that way. The total amount of money available for compensation in any business is going to be a function of revenue. If you increase the minimum, then you either have to raise revenue to match (ie: raise the price of your product), find a way to reduce your workforce, or adjust wages elsewhere (compress the middle basically).

I've explained this before. A store owner can afford to pay the single mom assistant manager $15/hour because he's only paying the high school kids working the counter $5/hour. Raising minimum wage causes wages to flatten within a given range of that minimum. Add in a sprinkle of inflation and the assistant manager job that used to pay enough to support a single mother (if barely) now doesn't. Multiply that by thousand of workplaces that employ workers at the low end of the wage scale, and you're **** over a **** of a lot of people so that some high school kids get more fun money. It's a terrible idea.


Cryst, isn't there are country we can ship you where there is no minimum wage so you can see first hand the paradise you claim it to be?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Feb 27 2014 at 11:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,639 posts
Quote:
Yes. That's because what the job does isn't worth much. We want to discourage people staying in low productive jobs. Anything which does the opposite is a bad thing.


So what, then? People just won't work these jobs at all? You want to encourage people to work, but only work "good" jobs? But wait! There aren't any good jobs, and more and more companies are replacing their old workers who have either died or retired with young people they are paying much less than their old workforce-- and keeping them at a low rate of pay. Meanwhile, more and more jobs are becoming automated or getting outsourced.

It's not 1996 anymore, gbaji. These aren't the happy Bill Clinton years. This is the era of a controlled and artificial recession-- one they will hold onto as long as possible. They won't let it get so bad that we have to fix it again. We are going to boil this frog so slowly he won't know he's being cooked. Kids graduating high school today think the way things are is NORMAL. The ones who don't get the opportunity to en-debt themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in college can expect long, miserable lives as lower class worker drones who will never amount to anything, no matter how talented or hard working they may be. Their children will think even less of it all, and merrily accept their roles as worthless and disposable bags of meat-- and for what? So a very small number of people can enjoy having more money than God? There is no reason at all we shouldn't have a MAXIMUM wage to help offset the cost of paying all workers a respectable wage.

You are still assuming that all low wage jobs easy, require no skill and are simply undeserving of any kind of pay at all. In reality, many if not most of them are cruel and demanding-- both physically and mentally. I am the one speaking from experience now. No real person I have known, or myself, has ever had an opportunity to advance beyond anything above $13 per hour. The only exception were those in upper-upper management-- who show up wrapped in absolute luxury at their leisure, working, or not working, however they please. These are people you might consider "middle class"-- These one or two people out of thousands. They may have worked hard, or not. It doesn't change the fact that everyone who wasn't chosen for their role are MIRED IN **** and have little to NO CHANCE at having anything better for themselves.

If we raise the minimum wage for any reason at all, let it be because no job is worth that little.

What these people in the article are saying makes perfect sense. There is no secret. There is nothing hidden or hard to figure out here. The economy works when everyone has money to spend on goods and services-- you know, like circulating and stuff! Instead, we have this nasty clot where the economy's life blood is pooled into one area, with little to work with elsewhere-- but only just to the point things can keep going. A parasite cannot survive if it kills its host.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#67 Feb 28 2014 at 12:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The overwhelming majority of workers earn more than minimum wage. 95.3% based on recent BLS data.

Shouldn't the relevant stat be how many people make between Current Minimum Wage and Proposed Minimum Wage? Because that's the real number of people seeing a direct increase, not just the people making rock bottom.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Feb 28 2014 at 4:06 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I still like the idea of pegging to inflation so you don't have to have these silly debates every 5 years.

Does wonders for that kind of thing.


Thats what i like about the socialist country of Canada. We get increases to min wage everytime the inflation rate goes up a certain amount. We are getting a bump up to 11 bucks this year. Not bad for flipping burgers.

Granted its still about 15% below where it should be ideally but even great systems can't be perfect.
Its not pegged to inflation across Canada, because if it were there would be raises in minimum wage every year. That simply doesn't happen. Most yes, but not all.



And gbaji, it doesn't state $15 immediately, or even over 5 years. You added that assumption.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#69 Feb 28 2014 at 7:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
[b]
Put it another way: Imagine you started working and earned $10/hour. 5 years later, you've earned raises and whatnot and are earning $20/hour. Then you boss decides to hire someone with the same starting skill/title/etc that you had 5 years ago, but decides to start that employee off at $20/hour. Would you be ok with that? I mean, you're still earning the same amount, right? Why do you care that the guy who started yesterday earns the same salary rate it took you 5 years to get to?

You'd be ****

Probably not, because my primary value isn't "worked here for a long time." If someone can come in with my skill set, they should be able to charge my fee. If I've developed new skills over 5 years, I should have a new title/job/role that value me more highly or I should **** leave.

I realize that's not how it's worked for you, Comrade, but for those of us who actually have plied a trade in the free market, that's exactly how it works. No one gives a **** if you've made the buggy whip for 100 years, if someone else can do the same job for a nickel less per unit, they're getting the contract.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#70 Feb 28 2014 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As I said in the last thread where this came up (and Gbaji claimed to had been personally burned by it), I just went to the boss after minimum wage was increased and said "Hey, I deserve to be making more compared to starting employees" and got a raise because my labor was indeed more valuable than that of a starting employee. It was a retail job and someone who knew the floor, ran registers, had good customer service and actually showed up for work when expected had a good argument for being paid more than the usual teenage retail chumps.

when it happened to Gbaji, I suspect that either his labor at the Gas-N-Go wasn't more valuable or he was just too afraid to ask for what his labor deserved.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Feb 28 2014 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
He seems to be the kind of person who coasts under the radar and would be negatively affected if he were personally reviewed. Guess that is who he is fighting for.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Feb 28 2014 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Most companies give raises at a rate of 5% a year at most. So, you'd have to be working the same position for 20 years at that rate to double your salary.

Of course, the assumption is that you get promoted to new positions that give you a much bigger boost in earnings along with the new title, but for someone making minimum wage, it means they likely lack the education or training to do anything else. Experience can help in certain industries, but not in fast food if all you have is a GED.

And as we learned from the McDs lady who had been there for 10 years and was making the same pay she'd made when she started, not all companies bother with any kind of raise at all. If she was doing so poorly as to not deserve a raise for years of service, why was she still working there at all? And then they fired her after she had the audacity to ask that question to the CEO of McDs.

That, I think, is the biggest problem with the franchise model. The corporation is disconnected from the actual day to day operations of the individual businesses. The franchise owners are fully in it for themselves - they may give lip service to protecting the corporate image, but their primary goal is making as much money as they can after the franchise fees are taken out. And the corporation, trying to be helpful when they hear the franchise employees are broke, give a budget worksheet that assumes they'll be working two jobs, or fully admits they know their employees are on food stamps because they don't pay enough.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#73 Feb 28 2014 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
5,639 posts
They don't pay enough. I see that over and over. Why do they need food stamps? The job or jobs they have don't pay enough. "Oh, but--" no. They don't pay enough.

If people get **** because the bottom pay level is making a rate of pay closer to theirs, then by all means, raise their pay as well-- because I guarantee you that they aren't getting paid enough, either. This isn't just a matter of minimum wage not being enough. Ultimately we want to "strengthen the middle class," and ultimately pay raises across the bottom 80% of the board will benefit the economy as a whole.

...and this is the part where we pretend it is impossible-- that big companies (oh, and small businesses) simply can't afford this, because they can-- Or we will fumble about and say the cost of everything will go up, and maybe it will, but not NEARLY enough to matter. Like, "oh god, those kids in Australia make $16 per hour starting out, but their milk costs twenty cents more!" Oh noes! "Our workers have to have health insurance now, and that'll cost everyone 15 cents more per pizza! Oh woe for the middle class. Why must they suffer?"

We are so entrenched in this culture of anti-labor. We are so easily convinced that we deserve less, and that somehow the social elite have "earned" the obscene amount of money they command. As if any amount of work they do or have done is deserving of $7,412 PER HOUR. We shrug our shoulders when they **** people and cut corners, because "eh, they are making money." I actually hear that a lot, and it takes everything in me not punch them in the face when they say it.

There is no other topic discussed on this forum that is so garishly one-sided-- yet if you ask the average Joe on the street about it, he will parrot MANY of gbaji's talking points-- This average Joe who busts his balls working 45 hours a week making not nearly as much as he should be making-- he has already devised a thousand ways to rationalize his bleak existence, and the lies they feed him are more than convenient when he knows there is nothing he can do about it.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
Rust Server Info
#74 Feb 28 2014 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,188 posts
Catwho wrote:
Most companies give raises at a rate of 5% a year at most. So, you'd have to be working the same position for 20 years at that rate to double your salary.
More like 13 years or so.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#75 Feb 28 2014 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
More like 30 years, if you want a doubling in real terms.

P.S. More like 14 years, Aethien. The italics indicate unwarranted cattiness.

Edited, Feb 28th 2014 7:47pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#76 Feb 28 2014 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
******
30,642 posts
My job in TN gave 5% a year raises. Everyone I knew was always shocked, and said they gave 2-3% every year. I don't know where "most companies" came from.
#77 Feb 28 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
We're somewhere like 3% as well. The "cost of living adjustment" is usually nearly taken up by rent increases.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#78 Feb 28 2014 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
My job in TN gave 5% a year raises. Everyone I knew was always shocked, and said they gave 2-3% every year. I don't know where "most companies" came from.


Huh, yeah, that sure sounds like a great job you used to have, there. Now, if I had a job like that, and this is just me, and someone pressured me to leave it? I don't know, that's the kind of thing I can see causing real resentment between the two of us, down the line.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#79 Feb 28 2014 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not if it got you out of Tennessee.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Feb 28 2014 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,309 posts
Hence the "at most."

I got a 2% raise this year. Standard cost of living adjustment, blah blah. The 5% figure includes merit raises as well.

And yeah, 13 years, not 20. I forgot the magic of compounding interest.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#81 Feb 28 2014 at 5:37 PM Rating: Decent
We don't get raises unless dear leader decrees the evil capitalist thugs who control our employment bestow upon us greater wealth for the future.

Edited, Feb 28th 2014 6:41pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#82 Feb 28 2014 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts

Gbaji's argument against minimum wage increases is..."envy"?

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#83 Feb 28 2014 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
[b]
Put it another way: Imagine you started working and earned $10/hour. 5 years later, you've earned raises and whatnot and are earning $20/hour. Then you boss decides to hire someone with the same starting skill/title/etc that you had 5 years ago, but decides to start that employee off at $20/hour. Would you be ok with that? I mean, you're still earning the same amount, right? Why do you care that the guy who started yesterday earns the same salary rate it took you 5 years to get to?

You'd be ****

Probably not, because my primary value isn't "worked here for a long time." If someone can come in with my skill set, they should be able to charge my fee.


Didn't bother to read what I wrote, did you? I specifically stated that they had the same "starting skill set" that you did 5 years ago. Meaning they are not as skilled as you are, they're just being paid the same because minimum wage has been raised and eliminated everything you gained.

Quote:
If I've developed new skills over 5 years, I should have a new title/job/role that value me more highly or I should @#%^ing leave.


Um... The assumption is that this is how you doubled your salary in 5 years. The problem is that raising minimum wage forces your employer to pay a brand new starting guy with no clue what he's doing the same wage as his much more experienced employees. This is only not the case for those of us who have been able to improve our wages at a rate much faster than any increase in minimum wage and thus can't get sucked back down into the "minimum wage worker" category.

Folks .like Kuwoobie though? He gets screwed if minimum wage raises. Cause apparently, in his world, everyone struggles for years to increase their wage from the minimum up to say $13/hour. So if the government raised the minimum to say $15/hour, he might initially think "hey! I'm making two dollars more per hour". But he will quickly realize that what's actually happened is that he's now making minimum wage, just like he was when he first started working. Prices in the market will adjust to that fact, and he'll have lost all the gains he made.


Um... And that's why Joph is correct that the important number is the number of people who earn a wage between the current minimum and the proposed new minimum. But not in the way he thinks. These are the people who will get screwed the most by a minimum wage hike. Weird part is how many of those people think it'll be a good thing for them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Feb 28 2014 at 7:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
trickybeck wrote:

Gbaji's argument against minimum wage increases is..."envy"?


Yeah. Don't try to think too hard about it. Apparently, it can't possibly be that I honestly believe that raising minimum wage hurts the lower income working class folks the most and want to save them that pain, and make it easier for them to advance economically. Nope. It must be that I'm envious of poor people getting paid more money! Yeah, that's it!

That or I'm just a mean guy with a monocle and a Persian cat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Feb 28 2014 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
trickybeck wrote:

Gbaji's argument against minimum wage increases is..."envy"?


Yeah. Don't try to think too hard about it. Apparently, it can't possibly be that I honestly believe that raising minimum wage hurts the lower income working class folks the most and want to save them that pain, and make it easier for them to advance economically. Nope. It must be that I'm envious of poor people getting paid more money! Yeah, that's it!

That or I'm just a mean guy with a monocle and a Persian cat.


You should open a used lexus dealership!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Feb 28 2014 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Don't try to think too hard about it.
Thor knows you haven't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Feb 28 2014 at 8:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
As I said in the last thread where this came up (and Gbaji claimed to had been personally burned by it), I just went to the boss after minimum wage was increased and said "Hey, I deserve to be making more compared to starting employees" and got a raise because my labor was indeed more valuable than that of a starting employee. It was a retail job and someone who knew the floor, ran registers, had good customer service and actually showed up for work when expected had a good argument for being paid more than the usual teenage retail chumps.

when it happened to Gbaji, I suspect that either his labor at the Gas-N-Go wasn't more valuable or he was just too afraid to ask for what his labor deserved.


Ok, first off, how about addressing the issue instead of constantly making it personal? What difference does it make what I did back then? It doesn't change the facts of the issue one bit. But for the record, it was my first job at a fast food place, and I was like 16 years old. So forgive me for not pushing the issue past asking if my wage would go up by the amount the minimum wage had increased and being told "no".


The broader issue (which several people have touched on), is that you can't have it both ways. If minimum wage increases and businesses don't increase other wages to match, then all those other people get screwed over. But if businesses do raise other wages, then this has the effect of inflating the costs of goods and services in exact proportion to the increase to the minimum wage increase. Meaning it (the wage increase) really has no effect at all. It's nullified by the increased cost of living.

Everyone loves to scream about this, but the reality is that you can't actually gain economically as a result of broadly applied government wage legislation. Ever. This is because all earnings, prices, and even currency itself is valued relative to each other. The only thing that will allow you to improve your own economic condition is to improve the value of whatever your labor produces and demand higher pay in the market. That's it. The idea that raising minimum wage will somehow magically make all the poor people not be poor anymore is laughable. It will not do anything at all to benefit them.

I know that's hard to accept because "more money" always seems better. But it's true. And if your economy is in the habit of raising minimum wage regularly, what you're also doing is setting a minimum "growth rate" at which anyone who can't keep up will continually get scooped up and dropped back into the "entry/unskilled wage earner" category. And that tends to lead to people not bothering to try to improve themselves. Why bother working to earn that max raise per year if minimum wage is going to eliminate it anyway?

Edited, Feb 28th 2014 6:22pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Feb 28 2014 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
And history continues to disagree with you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Feb 28 2014 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok, first off, how about addressing the issue instead of constantly making it personal? What difference does it make what I did back then?

Because you're the one who presented it as evidence for how unfair a wage hike is. Your own failure to man up (or be worth more) played a direct role in its "unfairness". Instead of claiming any personal responsibility for your failings, you want to whine and cry about how sad it is that someone might get a raise and you aren't making more than them now.

That's "what difference" it makes. You're the one who thought the anecdote was worthy of bringing up to make your point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Feb 28 2014 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Ok, if I'm reading you correctly, gbaji, having the, say, top 20% of wage earners making more and more money each year driving up prices is cool. If the bottom 30% make more money and that drives up prices, that's bad.
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#91 Feb 28 2014 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,062 posts
Well, of course. Only people with money to spare should make more. That's how the economy works in Gbaji land. Them poor folk wouldn't know what to do with it. They'd probably just spend it on stuff, and we all know how terrible that is for the economy. Jeez, Bijou, try to keep up.
#92 Feb 28 2014 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:

Why bother working to earn that max raise per year if minimum wage is going to eliminate it anyway?


You must work for a sh*tty company then. Every place Ive worked has always without question given non-minimum earners an equal increase in pay to recognize the service and commitment they have made to the company. (assuming you are diligent enough to request said increase...and/or are involved in Unions which always have a negotiated term regarding salary increases functioning with mandatory minimum wage increases)



Edited, Feb 28th 2014 10:11pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#93 Mar 01 2014 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
**
562 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
There is no reason at all we shouldn't have a MAXIMUM wage to help offset the cost of paying all workers a respectable wage.



When I was a kid and didn't know anything I thought the very idea was.. dunno,, it was practically unthinkable.

But the more I worked, the more I saw, the more I realized, that there needs to be some sort of artificial limit ( it can move with inflation ) beyond which the government should make unprofitable to venture beyond. Germany has a decent implementation of that.

It would be a very difficult pill to swallow in the US, but it would curb the insane greed that propels this insanity.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#94 Mar 04 2014 at 12:47 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Ok, if I'm reading you correctly, gbaji, having the, say, top 20% of wage earners making more and more money each year driving up prices is cool. If the bottom 30% make more money and that drives up prices, that's bad.


It's not about making more money. It's about the government passing a law forcing them to be paid more money. The top 20% of wage earners are earning their wages because the market naturally values whatever they do at that amount. Period. There's no government law saying that a CEO must earn $10m/year, right? And no law mandates how much money Brad Pitt gets paid for making a movie. The market determines this. Thus, their wages don't "drive up" anything. They are scaled to the relative value of what they do (as valued by the consumers of what they do).

Can we agree that the only reason to even consider raising the minimum wage (or having one in the first place) is if the market would result in people earning less than that proposed minimum? Point being that if out of every potential employer in the market, none of them are willing to pay you more than say $5/hour for your labor, by definition, that's how much your labor is worth. Meaning that your employer gains some value from your labor sufficient that he can afford to pay you that $5/hour and make enough extra money to justify the hassle of hiring you in the first place.

If the government raises the minimum wage, that means that everyone who's wage is actually increased by that is now getting paid more than their labor is actually valued by the market. Which means that the consumers of the product of that labor are normally only willing to pay a given amount for that product, which means your employer only makes X profits off the sale of that product, and is only willing to pay you Y pay for it. Raising that wage means everything else has to adjust. Suddenly, the employer must charge more for the product his workers produce in order to pay the higher wage. But consumers weren't willing to pay more for that product previously. But now they are forced to because the entire industry has been affected. If it had just been a single employer who raised his prices (perhaps even to pay his workers more), consumers would go to a competitor with lower prices. That's how the "normal" price for those products are set. Since wages are raised across the board in competing industries, prices can raise across the board as well since there's no competitive disadvantage now. But this means that everyone else is saddled with that increased cost. Prices go up, causing inflation, and over time other wages will adjust as well.

End result is that nothing changes.

If your wages increase naturally as a result of your labor being valued more, that has no negative effect. But if everyone's wages are raised artificially, it has a negative effect. Huge difference. This is not about "rich vs poor". It's about how we value things in a market. So if you earn minimum wage and over time increase your wage from $7.50/hour to $9.50/hour, you gain $2/hour. But if you and every other minimum wage earner have your earnings increased to $9.50/hour, you gain nothing. Please tell me you can see why this is true?

Edited, Mar 3rd 2014 10:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Mar 04 2014 at 12:53 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Kuwoobie wrote:
There is no reason at all we shouldn't have a MAXIMUM wage to help offset the cost of paying all workers a respectable wage.



When I was a kid and didn't know anything I thought the very idea was.. dunno,, it was practically unthinkable.

But the more I worked, the more I saw, the more I realized, that there needs to be some sort of artificial limit ( it can move with inflation ) beyond which the government should make unprofitable to venture beyond. Germany has a decent implementation of that.

It would be a very difficult pill to swallow in the US, but it would curb the insane greed that propels this insanity.


Sorry. A maximum wage law is about the most idiotic thing possible. Why do you care how much money other people are willing to pay other people? I guess I just don't get it. If a board of directors, who represent the majority stockholders of a company and therefore have the greatest stake in its success, decide to pay a CEO $15M/year, why shouldn't they be free to do that? It's their **** money.

Who the **** are you or the government to tell them they can't do that? It flies in the face of the most basic principle of liberty (ownership and control of one's own property). Take that away, and we don't have anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Mar 04 2014 at 1:44 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Suddenly, the employer must charge more for the product his workers produce in order to pay the higher wage.
Or, y'know, make less of a profit.

Really, gbaji, which is better?:


A. Employer makes $1 million/year in profit while paying $X/hr in wages. Employees need foodstamps, subsidised housing, etc.

B. Employer makes $800k/year profit while paying employees $1.5X/hr in wages (a 50% increase, in case math befuddles you). Employees no longer a burden on the welfare system.


Pick one.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 12:45am by Bijou
____________________________
Sandinmygum wrote:
VorxDargo1 wrote:
who the h3ll do you think you are anyway?
According to your logic, I'm like an FFXIV God. You can call me Sand. I want sand, buckets of it. And Everclear..lots and lots of everclear.
#97 Mar 04 2014 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,952 posts
Quote:
If your wages increase naturally as a result of your labor being valued more, that has no negative effect. But if everyone's wages are raised artificially, it has a negative effect. Huge difference. This is not about "rich vs poor". It's about how we value things in a market. So if you earn minimum wage and over time increase your wage from $7.50/hour to $9.50/hour, you gain $2/hour. But if you and every other minimum wage earner have your earnings increased to $9.50/hour, you gain nothing. Please tell me you can see why this is true?


You only gain nothing if you're primary concern is relative standing, rather than buying power, which is probably the least important thing to care about.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#98 Mar 04 2014 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
A maximum wage law is about the most idiotic thing possible.
You spend far more time writing your posts than actually reading them, don't you?
gbaji wrote:
Why do you care how much money other people are willing to pay other people?
Because if someone new makes as much as me I'll be really sad!

Oh, wait, that was why you cared so much.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#99 Mar 04 2014 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,301 posts
Didn't bother to read what I wrote, did you? I specifically stated that they had the same "starting skill set" that you did 5 years ago. Meaning they are not as skilled as you are, they're just being paid the same because minimum wage has been raised and eliminated everything you gained.

Yes, I was terribly confused, that's why I replied on point and explained why your supposition was idiotic. TRY READING, idiot. When someone destroys your argument instantly, it's because your argument sucks, not because they were confused.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#100 Mar 04 2014 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Suddenly, the employer must charge more for the product his workers produce in order to pay the higher wage.
Or, y'know, make less of a profit.

Really, gbaji, which is better?:


A. Employer makes $1 million/year in profit while paying $X/hr in wages. Employees need foodstamps, subsidised housing, etc.

B. Employer makes $800k/year profit while paying employees $1.5X/hr in wages (a 50% increase, in case math befuddles you). Employees no longer a burden on the welfare system.


Pick one.

Edited, Mar 4th 2014 12:45am by Bijou

I want to play!

I pick B because I can reduce taxes on Corporations and Individuals with the reduced strain on Welfare programs, which means more money for everyone!, and with more money that means people buy more stuff which means more jobs, more people working EVEN less strain on social services and I can put that money into Infrastructure repair (more jobs) or emerging technology grants (more jobs) or even into health sciences (more jobs and a healthier population) or heck I could pay down debt owning which means all that extra money everyone has increases in value on the global stage...so that nice vacation John and Shirley planned for Rome will cost them less money!.

Win win win. And McD's still rakes in a pile of cash because the people working there can afford to eat there!

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Mar 04 2014 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
And McD's still rakes in a pile of cash because the people working there can afford to eat there!
And they get healthcare which they'll need for eating those burgers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (33)