Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gap GuiltFollow

#77 Feb 28 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,399 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
******
21,262 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: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#82 Feb 28 2014 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

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

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#83 Feb 28 2014 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 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
******
34,982 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#86 Feb 28 2014 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 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
******
34,982 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
******
49,821 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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
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.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#91 Feb 28 2014 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,553 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#93 Mar 01 2014 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,264 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
******
34,982 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
******
34,982 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
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
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
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#97 Mar 04 2014 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,230 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.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Mar 04 2014 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 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
******
30,084 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 *****. 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? ***. 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 ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#101 Mar 04 2014 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 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: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)