CFC off topic think tank study #2

[Janitor_X]

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?

If it aint a great benefit or it aint a law, a place aint likely to make such a job. The person sweepin for $5 an hour would most likely end up being the guy that does plum near everything around the shop that the others don't wanna do. Meanin' he'd work harder and longer than the others with no real hope of a raise outta the deal. It's just that sorta thing that we already have a minimum wage to protect us from. But it aint going up along with prices, and that aint just. Poverty aint no requirement for success... the raise all in all wouldn't be but a tiny drop in the bucket of the strongest economy in the world. If they need to depend on such low wages then they ought move their shop to where the people can live on it, outta this country. Now I don't like seein jobs leave but as some people said on here already, certain types of companies can't compete from here anymore and that's just fine, get 'em on outta here and the faster the better. Don't let 'em back (unless they got strong enough to survive here while playin by the rules) and tax the mess outta what they try to send to us from the new shop, that's what I feel about that.

As for who is it helping? It's helpin the people elsewhere that are in an even worse boat than I am, that's who. In the long haul it might even help us as we're already in the transition into being reduced to this here "services economy". Kickin' all of the limpin dogs out a bit faster (meanin the weaker companies that are so defunct that they can't pay living wages) would leave nothin but stronger faster growing things (like the wal-mart) to fill the void.

 

[Bamspeedy]

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.

Unskilled guy=Asks for $6/hour, so he can support his living.
Student=Asks for $4/hour to pay for his books at school while he lives at home

Who do you think the company will hire?

If they are both offered $6/hour, then they are on a level playing field. If the student wants the job then he has to learn his interviewing skills to get the job, just like everyone else. If the unskilled person has had some previous work in that area or can show he has dependable work experience he can ask to be paid more than $6 if he wants and thinks the company would pay it, but $6 is just the minimum.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Classic liberalist at work here ey?

 

[ainwood]

Unskilled guy=Asks for $6/hour, so he can support his living.
Student=Asks for $4/hour to pay for his books at school while he lives at home

Who do you think the company will hire?

On a micro or macro level? There will be less and less people willing to work for $4 and hour.

If they are both offered $6/hour, then they are on a level playing field.

No, they're not. One is unskilled, the other demonstrating (through his studies) that he is willing to continue to upskill.

 

[Bamspeedy]

On a micro or macro level? There will be less and less people willing to work for $4 and hour.

Well, if it's $4/hour or nothing at all...

And depending on the industry, the student will be gone after he's done with school so the company might be more interested in the unskilled guy because he isn't going anywhere so they wouldn't need to retrain a new worker (and take a gamble that the new worker won't show up for work).

But I see what you are saying, but it happens the other way too. I have turned down lots of overtime because I make enough that I just don't want to work any harder. If a student makes enough working 10 hours a week to pay his bills then he wouldn't want to work 20 or 40 hours (so he has more time for studying), which leaves more work for someone else to be hired to do. Most of the minimum wage earners are working a full time job and a part time job just to get by. If he only had the full time job and that paid all his bills then that would open up the part time job for the student.

 

[ainwood]

Most of the minimum wage earners are working a full time job and a part time job just to get by. If he only had the full time job and that paid all his bills then that would open up the part time job for the student.

Out of interest, in the US is a second job taxed at a higher rate? It is in New Zealand, which I think is insane....

I do take your point, but from an economic theory perspective, putting minimum wages in distorts the market, and I think it actually keeps wages low. Same thing with subsidised production (eg agriculture).

 

[Bamspeedy]

Out of interest, in the US is a second job taxed at a higher rate?

Well, when they figure out the taxes for your paycheck they don't consider your other job so they don't take much out. But at the end of the year when you fill out the tax forms the incomes from both jobs are combined and that may put you in a higher tax bracket, so yes you'd pay a higher tax rate. I don't know how badly NZ is taxed for the 2nd job, so I don't know if New Zealanders are penalized more than Americans or not.

When I had two jobs I always told my employer at the part time job to take out extra money from my check so that way at the end of the year I didn't end up owing money because of my other job.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Unskilled guy=Asks for $6/hour, so he can support his living.
Student=Asks for $4/hour to pay for his books at school while he lives at home

Who do you think the company will hire?

Why must he hire the $6 man?

But let's turn this on its head. Shouldn't the unskilled guy work to improve his skills instead? How about a guy who is already worth that ammount, he gets nothing extra.

And earlier you just said that employers who cannot afford to pay the minimum must not be allowed to employ people. So conversely, people who are worth less than the minimum deserve to remain unemployed. I find that position a little objectionable.

 

[Janitor_X]

Why must he hire the $6 man?

But let's turn this on its head. Shouldn't the unskilled guy work to improve his skills instead? How about a guy who is already worth that ammount, he gets nothing extra.

And earlier you just said that employers who cannot afford to pay the minimum must not be allowed to employ people. So conversely, people who are worth less than the minimum deserve to remain unemployed. I find that position a little objectionable.

Yep, if a business can't afford to hire people at the minimum wage then they ought ta move the business ta where it's OK to pay that little. Just like anything else in this contry, if ya can't afford to play by the rules ya shouldn't be playin here at all. It's the reason folk like me end up sleepin outside from time to time so I don't see why a business oughtta get treated any better. As for the people not being worth the minimum wage, well those people aint gonna survive on such a job anyway and the big secret here is that they aint worth less than the minimum wage just because someone says so. The jobs these people based there life on doing aren't as valuable now (or available for that matter) so the people been kinda tossed aside. It'll happen to the white collar folks too at some point and then I expect that then welfare is gonna be handed out based on the "worth" of the new brand of homeless folks? Nah, it aint happenin, probably be sharin the curb with the rest of us.

But I don't expect someone who thinks a person's worth is based on the availability of the work they know how to do to feel that way until it's there turn to see their work go to other folk who can do it cheaper. Take a trip to Flint Michigan, tell them folks they was once the cream of the crop but now they have zero value, and just that fast.

What I can't wait for is getting my auto insurance from China. Having my bank (and all of it) in India, not just the call in part. I want the President and the CEOS, all of it to come from there. I dont want to have to deal with no overpriced American Citizen for any service... I don't want none of my pc software to be written by one who lives in the states either, none of it. I want the construction crews what build buildings ta in here to ride here on a boat like a construction navy from somewhere that constrction crews are much cheaper... all of it. Internet Services, cable, phone services, even my electric all comin at me from elsewhere... I want my news made there, my movies written and directed overseas. Even the actors would be cheaper if they was from somewhere else! That might put these so called more valuable folk in a pickle somethin like mine.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

JanitorX, what would you say would be a means to establish value? Or how would worker A be more valuable than worker B?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why must he hire the $6 man?

How about a guy who is already worth that ammount, he gets nothing extra.

Maybe you misunderstood the scenario. I was talking about if the minimum was $6, then what would happen if the minimum wage was dropped (so the student would start offering lower than what the current minimum is).

I didn't say he had to hire the man....He could hire the student...If he paid the student $6/hour. If there was no minimum wage, the student would be at an unfair advantage of willing to work for dirt cheap.

$6 (with a minimum wage) is just the starting point. If either the student or the unskilled man think their qualifactions makes them deserve more than the $6, then they can present their arguments and the company will make a decision, weighing the different pros and cons between the two candidates and the wages they are asking.

But let's turn this on its head. Shouldn't the unskilled guy work to improve his skills instead?

Theoretically, yes. But how is he going to do that when he doesn't have the money or time to attend any college classes because he is working 60+ hours a week at only $4/hour (that low of a wage because he has to keep competitive with the young college students who are willing to work for that low of pay). He's working so many hours because of the low pay and he needs enough $ to put a roof over his head and pay his own bills because he is 30-40+ years old and doesn't have his parents to live with, that the student would have the luxury of (parents paying some expenses).

So conversely, people who are worth less than the minimum deserve to remain unemployed. I find that position a little objectionable.

JanitorX, what would you say would be a means to establish value? Or how would worker A be more valuable than worker B?

Well, each company determines their starting pay differently based on several factors. Part of this is decisions by the manager (hey, he actually does something!) All companies realize that if they only offer the minimum, they will get (generally speaking) the worst workers. If the company doesn't have a problem with that, well that's up to them. But if they want to keep their workers they will offer more pay. If the workers feel they are worth more than the minimum then they will try their best to find a job somewhere else.

Another factor is the profitability of the business. A cook at a restaurant works harder than most people do at a brewery, but the brewery makes so much more money and run more efficiently that the brewery can afford to pay their workers $20/hour.

Someone worth less than the minimum? If you are talking about people with, lets say zero work experience, I would say are people who deserve the minimum. As he works there a little bit, that is what raises are for. If the company doesn't give raises, then it is time for the experienced worker to leave for another company because now he is not being paid what he is worth.
So now how about those people with less than zero experience? These are the people with terrible work experience (doesn't show up for work, quit several jobs for no reason, fired from several jobs, etc.), or incredibly lazy people, or people who have learning disabilities (like my brother).

Well for people with learning disabilities the company often gets some sort of tax break for hiring these people. So the company is spending less than the minimum to give my brother work, while my brother makes enough money to have his own place, pay for his own food, etc. Costs a little bit from the taxpayers (from the tax break), but way less than if the taxpayers had to pay my brother disability payments and other government handouts.

For the people with terrible work history and very lazy, well they have nobody to blame but themselves if they don't get a job. Instead of there being a minimum wage to encourage these people to work or not work, they will compare the benefits of what they can collect from welfare, unemployment, etc. vs. what they would make by actually working. Should a company hire these people and pay them a super low pay, which deprives a more capable (willing to work) person from a decent pay?

Take a trip to Flint Michigan, tell them folks they was once the cream of the crop but now they have zero value, and just that fast.

Yea, Unions. If the workers weren't being paid $25/hour then they would still have their jobs. I'm for the minimum wage, but against unions. Which is ironic because unions brought us minimum wage. Basically I think unions have out-lived their usefullness. Another problem is CEO's being paid too much. I don't know what to do with that. I dont want to advocate a cap on pay, I just want a 'safety net' for the lowest wage earners so they aren't taken advantage of.

 

[Janitor_X]

JanitorX, what would you say would be a means to establish value? Or how would worker A be more valuable than worker B?

A workers value is easy to see, how good of a job and how quickly he does that job are a couple of ways. But I'm tellin ya it's human nature that if a guy could buy all the world's food for a penny a pound and sell it for $300 per ounce, he'd do it no matter who starved on account of it as long as some was bein bought, he'd make himself a profit. With so many folks out of work there's not too much incentive for them to raise wages even for the good workers. As a matter of fact, someone workin hard is probably trying to keep his job so there's less of a reason to give that guy more money. The unpaid raises add to profit or somewhere else that shows better on the bottom line than the happiness of the workers. This is because most places that hire folks like me are on their way out. Ya want to sell a car, do ya fix the inner workings that nobody sees or do ya give it a paint job? Paint job looks nicer and probably will get the sale quicker. People like me are the inner workings of companies that ya don't see when yer lookin at the stock ticker.

 

[Perfection]

Well, it's not like profit is generally wasted. Usually it's reinvested into something that benefits society.

 

[Janitor_X]

Well, it's not like profit is generally wasted. Usually it's reinvested into something that benefits society.

Small smaller bits of profit (like that which was saved from wages) end up in bonuses and profit sharin and such, which benefits the people who are helpin to keep the wages so low in the first place. Yeah these folks are a part of society but it aint the part that cares so much if minimum wage provides the minimum necessities for livin. In the place where I work profit has been goin for buildin their new plant south of the border there. Which benefits a different society by squeezin this one. It's their right ta do so and I aint sayin there's nothin wrong with that. Just sayin that not all profit goes ta helpin this society.

 

[Perfection]

I don't see Mexico as a different society. They have as much a right to eat as we do.

 

[Janitor_X]

I don't see Mexico as a different society. They have as much a right to eat as we do.

They got a government that aint known for its acts of humanity. Human rights issues separate us from lots of the people that we've been makin stronger lately. We been overlookin bad treatment of folks for so long that now it's getting to be OK to mistreat 'em here at home. It aint the direction this country oughta be going. But yes, I agree that if a company can't make it by playin by our rules they oughtta go elsewhere. As long as we can farm out the services too. If people deserve lower prices on durable goods, then we deserve lower prices on services too. I shouldn't have to pay some pricey american firm for my insurance and such if they shouldn't have to pay some pricey american papermill to crank out their paper.

 

[JerichoHill]

Sigh.

I come back to this and see its a mess. Ainwood, you've done good.

POINT: A college student will demand more money because they are more skilled than an unskilled laborer. It has nothing to do with NEED as to why people will want a wage of X. It has to do with their skills.

If you don't want a small wage, make yourself irreplacable.

If you want to understand Wage Theory, I'd be happy to delve right in.