CFC off topic think tank study #2

[Elta]

Minimum wage has allways been a hard subject to tackle why? because the cost of living is diff. every where within a country ...even withing a state or county for example the largest county in america is 52,073 km² Larger than holland and denmark!.

Anyways what makes me think I should be able to guess at what our minimum wage should be? I dunno what makes argentinans thin los enanitos verdes are a better band than mana?

*on topic*
The U.S. military determinds how much someone should recive for housing base on the basic housing allowance (in most place this amount will get you at least a
small studio) So lets take a look at these numbers:

Go here:https://secureapp2.hqda.pentagon.mil/perdiem/bah.html plug in the numbers you get for your area as a E-1 with no dependents: for 89032 I got 859$ take the number you got and split it by 3 (for example I now have 286.3) now lets take that number and multiply it by 5 I now have 1431$ now lets take that number and divide it by 160 (I.E. 40 hours of work on the clock per week for 4 weeks) I have about 8.95$


*RECAP:BHA for a E-1 with no dependents devided by 3 X 5 devided by 160 = Your number Resonable or unreasonable? (please vote above after reading what is below this)

In Vegas as far as jobs that are not door to door sales or some sort of telemarketing - surveys etc etc the lowest paying are Being the guy who holds up big arrows to point to the newest houses that are being shown off, fast food, then you have your basic large scale retailer

I work at walmart where everyone make from 7.50 an hour to 9.40 an hour (give or take defined by entry position and evaluations ...most everyone there for 2 years makes about 9.40 ...in the Vegas area anyway) So I know big retailers (or at least the biggest one in the industry ....which is logical to go by)

I don't think we need to worry about the bottom falling out of the guy who spins a giant arrow industry..... so this begs the question would 8.95$ per hour put the fast food chains out of bussiness? (agian in your town these numbers would obviously be diff. where you live)

Housing on average takes 30% of a households wage so it is by in large one of the best indicators of a cost of living (I know I know we need a frew more numbers ...maybe even getting up to at least 50% of them covered to make it accurate) So what are the numbers where you live and is this reasonable or unreasonable where you live and work?


*Jerico please comment

 

[Bamspeedy]

I got $5.55 for my Zip Code.

Minimum wage is $5.70 in Wisconsin ($5.15 is what the federal minimum is).
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm <--Map of minimum wages

The cost of living here obviously isn't as high as say, New York or even Vegas, but I don't know how people can make it on that kind of wage unless they have 2 jobs.

 

[Elta]

I got $5.55 for my Zip Code.

Minimum wage is $5.70 in Wisconsin ($5.15 is what the federal minimum is).
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm <--Map of minimum wages

The cost of living here obviously isn't as high as say, New York or even Vegas, but I don't know how people can make it on that kind of wage unless they have 2 jobs.

Yeah it's def. not a living wage by any strech of the imagination.

 

[Vietcong]

texas its 5.15. the fed min unless u work as a bar teender or a job whear u get tips. then the min wage is something like 2.15 i think..

last week i got a 619$, but after taxs i got less then 510$..
110$ in taxes..
i get payed very 2 weeks, this was with 17 hours of time/half for labor day and an hour or 2 over time
i get about 6.75 and sometimes i work at night so i get .25$ more.... witch is allmost not worth it considering most places give 1$ for working nights.
i still dont get enofe to do muchs.. this is very unsual for me to get that much.. usly its about 450 or so i make every 2 weeks after taxs.

 

[Janitor_X]

Minimum wage ought not be fixed per say. What ought be done is that on the wage ya can find the price of yer housing ought ta be adjusted. This is a square way to make sure that some folk who might do so aint abusin nothin by buying drugs with their money and then just not having none left for rent. Shelter oughta be a right to one who is workin their whole life away. The government would cover the rest of the rent, it may not sound too great seeing as how the government aint too good at keeping track of its own money but if the economy aint doin bad as they say, this wouldn't hurt nobody none.

For example to get into what ya say. My rent costs over 2 full weeks worth of pay. I have a place here in the less than nice part of town and I got no problem with that. But makin about 800 per month and puttin more than half of it into rent don't leave me with much. The third week of the month finds me with nothin left, and I aint out splurgin neither. Don't buy new clothes or nothin like that, I keep to the thrift shops for most things. Don't touch no drop of booze, don't use no drugs. Aint one of yer foolish stereotype poor folk out here throwin money at nonsense. Costs about $40 in gas per week ta get back and forth to work. So with rent costin $500 and gas $160, I got $140 left for the month which goes ta electric ($50 approx) then is heat ($30-80 approx depends on season) and after that (from the remaining $60 - $10) comes my car insurance which aint too much, and then I'm supposed ta get food and do laundry and buy the other things a person needs like soap and such. Were my van ever ta break for good or some other thing, you can see how it'd be real ugly real soon. Can't imagine how things would get if I had me a kid or somethin. Lucky that I've never made that mistake. I suppose it's lucky that I never could be bothered with all of that sorta family type stuff.

 

[CartesianFart]

Minimum wage ought not be fixed per say. What ought be done is that on the wage ya can find the price of yer housing ought ta be adjusted. This is a square way to make sure that some folk who might do so aint abusin nothin by buying drugs with their money and then just not having none left for rent. Shelter oughta be a right to one who is workin their whole life away. The government would cover the rest of the rent, it may not sound too great seeing as how the government aint too good at keeping track of its own money but if the economy aint doin bad as they say, this wouldn't hurt nobody none.

Interesting idea. And welcome to CFC OT.

But i have to say that we already have a system somewhat like that.In my State that is.Of course when people receive SSI or some municipal county housing vouchers,i have to say from my experiences of people under this relief should be drug tested.Trust me,it is probable that must of them under some sort of welfare are not some wako nut job,but are workshy and use alot of drugs.

I believe the minimum wage should be controlled by state and municipal.Not Federal.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Minimum wage has allways been a hard subject to tackle why? because the cost of living is diff. every where within a country ...even withing a state or county for example the largest county in america is 52,073 km&#178; Larger than holland and denmark!.

Two issues:
1. Doesn't the minimum wage cause unemployment (either directly, or by a lower than otherwise future employment)?
2. If person X wants to work for a wage lower than the minimum, should he be punished? If employer Y can only afford to employ X at a price lower than the minimum, should he refrain from hiring X?

 

[Elta]

Two issues:
1. Doesn't the minimum wage cause unemployment (either directly, or by a lower than otherwise future employment)?
2. If person X wants to work for a wage lower than the minimum, should he be punished? If employer Y can only afford to employ X at a price lower than the minimum, should he refrain from hiring X?

Thats why I made the thread to awnser these questions
As for the housing stuff I hope they expand section 8 (a federal program where if you work somewhere and get the cheapest form of housing availbale close to that work HUD will pay for the rent so long as you put 30% of each check twords it)

 

[Bamspeedy]

2. If person X wants to work for a wage lower than the minimum, should he be punished? If employer Y can only afford to employ X at a price lower than the minimum, should he refrain from hiring X?

If an employer can't afford to pay the minimum, then his business should not be operating. Or he needs to find a way to cut expenses in some other area (like perhaps his own pay), find a way to run things more efficiently, or raise his prices.

1. Doesn't the minimum wage cause unemployment (either directly, or by a lower than otherwise future employment)?

Well, we could have everyone be paid $1/hour, but then nobody will have any money to spend so then business will close because they can't even pay $1/hour.

 

[JerichoHill]

No, no, no.

Point 1: The current minimum wage is so low that it doesn't cause unemployment. Try this: Draw an X. Now make a line below the crosspoint. That's our current minimum wage. It doesn't affect diddly. Now draw one above the cross. That's the living wage. That causes unemployment. Do I know what the cross is? Nope. Somewhere inbetween where we are and the living wage.

2) The living wage is a horrendously bogus idea. It would not accomplish its goals. You can't just raise wages to eliminate poverty. That creates unemployement and inflation.

3) Remember that a good portion of those making near minimum wages are kids, whose parents do not make the minimum wage.

4) I don't think employers should be punished if someone wants to work for less than MW. I worry about exploitation and under the counter payments, but I think that happens anyways now, so...

5) Shelter isn't a right. Besides, wages in cities already account for differences in cost of living. (its true!, if you look at averages among deciles.


Conclusions:
1) I don't have a problem with a federally mandated floor, as safety valve, since it really doesn't affect the economy.
2) However, raising the min wage will, at a point, start creating unemployment. It is very likely that those let go at this point will be very low skilled
3) It makes much more sense if you care about the welfare of those who are low-skilled to encourage said min. wage employers (retail) to enact policies that enable their employees to gain in education, either GED, night school, etc.

4) In reality, wages are determined by the value of your labor, which will vary from job to job, type to type, industry to industry. I don't think there's one flat rate that anyone could agree too.

 

[Elta]

I like awnser number 3 .... I wonder about the legality of it thou.

2) However, raising the min wage will, at a point, start creating unemployment.

Any guesses?

 

[JerichoHill]

I'd say another 2 bucks and you'd see an effect, specifically on elderly employment. That's just an opinion and a guess, not fact.

As for answer #3, its perfectly legal. Institute a tax break/incentive companies who have say, half their employees (arbitrary) earning 1.5xMW or less. For every dollar, the employer gives towards education, they get 1.5x that as a tax credit, up to say (num_emp < 1.5xMW)*1.5 or (flat rate).

Thus, the business is better off (they pay less in taxes), the employee gains, and the loss in taxable revenue will eventually be made up by the higher earnings of those employees.

Chick-Fil-A has instituted this kind of a model on its own


According to the Council for Aid to Education, no other company in terms of size does as much in the scholarship area as Chick-fil-A.
Through its Leadership Scholarship program, Chick-fil-A has offered financial assistance to 20,000 restaurant employees who have gone on to attended 2,138 colleges, universities and other educational institutions throughout the country since the program was established.

(Basically, all you have to do is work for them for 2 years, do well in school, and they'll send you to college. A buddy of mine was able to afford GaTech with this, graduated with a management degree, and now owns 2 chick-fil-a restaurants...he makes cash money.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

If an employer can't afford to pay the minimum, then his business should not be operating. Or he needs to find a way to cut expenses in some other area (like perhaps his own pay), find a way to run things more efficiently, or raise his prices.

Why? Can't he just voluntarily engage in some form of agreement with an equally voluntary party?

Well, we could have everyone be paid $1/hour, but then nobody will have any money to spend so then business will close because they can't even pay $1/hour.

The quantity of money doesn't matter here. There is a difference between "making" money and "manufacturing" it. So even if everyone was paid $1 per hour, the quantity of money would not change (other things equal), so the owners of the money can still exert demand, and therefore prices will not have to change.

On the other hand, if indeed there were far fewer money around, prices would have to change, because sellers (and service providers) will react to the drop in demand. But this does not mean (necessarilly) that less will be sold (excluding temporary adjustments).

If you want to sell a car and put a price tag of $100,000,00 on it, and noone buys it, then would it not be advisable (if you want to sell the car) to cut the price... just a teeny tiny bit?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why? Can't he just voluntarily engage in some form of agreement with an equally voluntary party?

Why would anyone want to work for less than what the current minimum is? Students maybe, but do you want students forcing other people (who need to pay for their own shelter) out of work because the student is asking for less money!? Why should someone still living off mommy take a job from someone who is trying to make it on their own?

There would be the potential for alot of exploitation of low wages from companies hiring people like the slow learners (mentally challenged) to the (legal) immigrants.

On the other hand, if indeed there were far fewer money around, prices would have to change, because sellers (and service providers) will react to the drop in demand. But this does not mean (necessarilly) that less will be sold (excluding temporary adjustments).

For some things you are right. The cost of housing varies greatly across the nation for example, but some things are charged the exact same no matter where you live because they sell enough of their services to people who have enough money. Would there be enough people that would be making less than the current minimum to get companies to drop their prices, or would the gap between rich and poor just expand? The people making the minimum today have more access to 'luxuries' (like eating out occassionally, cable, buying their own clothes, etc.) that the lowest wage earners 75 years ago would not have had the extra money to purchase.

I know what you are saying, and I'm not saying we should raise the minimum to $10 or $15/hour or anything crazy like that. We just need to have a minimum as a safegaurd against exploitation and the minimum should be enough so that someone willing to work 40 hours a week can have a reasonable standard of life (shelter, food, clothing). The minimum is exactly what it is, the minimum. There is nothing stopping the companies from paying more, but they don't want to because they can always find someone else to work for that wage. These companies would pay less if they could. The minimum should be adjusted for inflation so we don't need these discussions every 5 years.

 

[ainwood]

If an employer can't afford to pay the minimum, then his business should not be operating. Or he needs to find a way to cut expenses in some other area (like perhaps his own pay), find a way to run things more efficiently, or raise his prices.

Sorry, but there are some jobs that simply aren't worth the 'minimum wage', and only exist to provide a minor benefit.

As a random example, say in a factory that it would be 'helpful' if the floors were kept swept during the day, but there is no great benefit, because it is thoroughly cleaned at night. The employer might offer a flexible arrangement to an unemployed person for (say) $5 and hour. The unemployed person gets some money, and the flexibility to have time-off to go to job interviews (say). The employer gets the floor swept for a cheap price.

If the law says that the sweeper must be paid $8, the employer may decide its not worth it. Who is that helping?

 

[ainwood]

Why would anyone want to work for less than what the current minimum is? Students maybe, but do you want students forcing other people (who need to pay for their own shelter) out of work because the student is asking for less money!? Why should someone still living off mommy take a job from someone who is trying to make it on their own?

To earn money to put themselves through college? To earn money to buy themselves luxuries? To get work experience? To learn some responsibility?

 

[ybbor]

$10.70 for my ZIP







ha!

(minor note: the housing allowance is about the cost of my family's current 2 bdrm apartment)

 

[Bamspeedy]

Sorry, but there are some jobs that simply aren't worth the 'minimum wage', and only exist to provide a minor benefit.

As a random example, say in a factory that it would be 'helpful' if the floors were kept swept during the day, but there is no great benefit, because it is thoroughly cleaned at night. The employer might offer a flexible arrangement to an unemployed person for (say) $5 and hour. The unemployed person gets some money, and the flexibility to have time-off to go to job interviews (say). The employer gets the floor swept for a cheap price.

If the law says that the sweeper must be paid $8, the employer may decide its not worth it. Who is that helping?

Well, of course there are some exceptions for one individual worker. But in the case you mentioned, the employer has to make that choice, decisions like that are part of running a business. He could have him work an hour or two less for example. But you know darn well that there will be companies that would figure out they could get away with paying everyone $5 instead of $8. Then everyone loses.

To earn money to put themselves through college? To earn money to buy themselves luxuries? To get work experience? To learn some responsibility?

So instead of students working 20 hours a week @ $6/hr while they go to school, they'd have to work 40 hours a week @$3/hr to pay for their expenses? Why should the student earn luxuries when he is taking the job from someone else who is trying to SURVIVE! The person who is out on his own paying for all his own expenses can't compete with the low wages that the student living in a dorm or with his parents would offer.

 

[ainwood]

Well, of course there are some exceptions for one individual worker. But in the case you mentioned, the employer has to make that choice, decisions like that are part of running a business. He could have him work an hour or two less for example. But you know darn well that there will be companies that would figure out they could get away with paying everyone $5 instead of $8. Then everyone loses.

Unless companies acted as a cartel. Labour is a commodity - the price is controlled by supply & demand. A company could only "get away with" paying everyone $5 provided there was not a company requiring similarly skilled people wanting to pay more.

So instead of students working 20 hours a week @ $6/hr while they go to school, they'd have to work 40 hours a week @$3/hr to pay for their expenses? Why should the student earn luxuries when he is taking the job from someone else who is trying to SURVIVE! The person who is out on his own paying for all his own expenses can't compete with the low wages that the student living in a dorm or with his parents would offer.

So? That holds-up even with a minimum wage. The student still wants to work; the guy supporting his family is still in competition with him. The only thing that has changed is that the state has mandated the minimum that someone can be paid. This is actually more likely to be adverse to the (lets say unskilled) guy wanting to support his family than the student. As the wage goes up, for people who don't need to work, the incentive increases. Hence he's more likely to compete with the other guy.

 

[Janitor_X]

Interesting idea. And welcome to CFC OT.

But i have to say that we already have a system somewhat like that.In my State that is.Of course when people receive SSI or some municipal county housing vouchers,i have to say from my experiences of people under this relief should be drug tested.Trust me,it is probable that must of them under some sort of welfare are not some wako nut job,but are workshy and use alot of drugs.

I believe the minimum wage should be controlled by state and municipal.Not Federal.

We got similar systems but they aint for the long haul, more of a temporary thing. But as things been going we got 6000 homeless in out city of 150000. It's a good bit of folks who aint makin it. I agree 100% with the drug testing requirement. I know shelter aint a right, but it sure ought to be one for someone workin hard and making an honest effort. Aint all people capable of finishin school, we aint all got the same quality of brain. I put 100% of what I got into makin the place where I work a better, cleaner and safer place. I do what I do and I do it just as well and take it just as serious as anyone pushin papers around. I fret through the night when I feel I mighta not done somethin the best I coulda. I aint trying ta have all what a doctor got, but I don't feel like someone in jail should have a better life than someone like me who aint done nothin but give to society and do good things. I spent a good part of my life without a home, and a good part of my time working and still not having a home. It aint nothin unusual to see working homeless and I aint keen on believin that it's all these folks deserve.


thanks for the welcome, found this spot on account of meetin a couple a guys in IRC.