I know no one likes to start at the bottom, but everyone starts somewhere. I just have a hard time understanding what exactly is "minimum" about minimum wage. Is this the minimum amount to avoid absolute starvation? It certainly is not enough to live on.
With all the problems we debate about concerning healthcare, politics, and religion, think about how many problems might be alleviated if the common man were able to make a better living. I do not care if the richest 1% of the country takes a hit in their pocket book.
My question is, what if minimum wage were actually based on what a realistic living would cost for a person? How much would that be per hour? Although there would be some advantages, what would this mean to the economy? I am not a financial expert or an economist so I am at a loss, but is my proposal impossible or just unwanted because the rich get poorer and the poor get richer?
Believe me, I know this proposal is very simplistic, but there is a possibility minimum wage could be scaled for age. For example, a 15 year-old at Burger King makes $6 an hour, but an 18-year old independent adult makes $8 an hour etc...
I hate to throw out numbers, but I believe that minimum wage is impossibly ill-defined. Help.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, a town near where I live has recently "asked" companies that get a tax abatement to pay their full time employees 130% of the federal poverty level for a family of three. Apparently, that works out to $9.53 and hour. Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
Is the minimum wage not scaled to age there? I'm not an expert on such matters, but I believe it is here (NZ). Of course, I could be wrong.
Oh, but yes, I do agree the minimum wage is a joke. It should be much higher. Particularly for students who need time to study after they work. <---- is biased. Actually, I think it's more unfair on people with kids. But I don't have any... Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Minimum wage in the US is currently $5.15/hour
Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
Is that for everyone? Or just under 18's?
Posted by Etan Moonstar (Member # 4352) on :
Minimum wages are the minimum amount of money the government allows an employer to pay a normal employee. That's what is "minimum" about them.
Tinkering with the minimum wage tends to result in a variety of unintended consequences. For example, if you raise the minimum wage from, say, $6.50 to $6.90 (recent numbers here in Oregon), the raise will typically filter up through the ranks--your $7.00 second-tier employees are raised to $7.40 so they don't resent having more duties for a measly additional 10 cents per hour. This ripple effect continues to the top tier, and can result in several consequences, including fewer available jobs (because the company has just immediately lost 40 cents per employee without any immediate way to gain that money back other than layoffs) and eventual inflation (as the companies raise prices over the next few months to make up their wage losses--effectively leaving everybody where they were before the minimum wage increase in terms of purchasing power).
Age-scaling will result in even more drastic consequences. Companies like Burger King will exclusively hire $6 15 year-olds in favor of $8 independent adults. This will lead to an artifically high number of independent adults who are completely out of work because their jobs have been filled by teenagers whose primary expenses are still paid by their parents.
As you can see, economic realities make minimum and living wage issues considerably more complicated than they often appear at first glance. You know what they say about good intentions....
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
I worked at Superstore, which is the biggest grocery store chain in Canada. You might have heard of the strike we had a few years ago. Well, we got out wages raised to $9.50/hour, but the management cut all of the full-time employees down to 25 hours/week, which was the minimum amount allowable by the union. At a raise from $7.50/hour, now at 25 hours a week, that's about a $60 dollar loss per week.
This didn't really affect me, as I was a teenager living at home at the time. On the other hand, it badly affected the employees who relied on their full-time hours. The company just hired a bunch of new people at the original $7.50, and a large number of employees were forced out. Large corporations will typically find a loophole to counter just about any effort by their employees to make more money. Look at walmart. Didn't they say they would rather shut down completely before they unionize their workforce?
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
Mmmmm, Walmart shutting down completely makes my mouth water. Then all those jobs that went away because people don't patronize (many can't afford to patronize) independent or small-chain stores... will re-materialize! I know way too many independent stores that have had to close because some major chain competitor has stolen all their business.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
What about the thousands of people who work at walmart? It's all well and good that small businesses would gain a slight advantage, but walmart isn't the only huge retail corporation in America. I doubt the small retail chains have the power to employ the walmart workers who would be layed off.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
The Federal Minimum wage is $5.15 for everyone 15, and up. There are guidelines for employees under 18, for instance, how many hours per week they can work, and how many hours per shift they can work.
Etan,
Excellent information. I agree about the dire consequences of scaling minimum wage. Geez, I should look before I leap.
Fitz,
I too see your dilemma. Actually, I deal with it weekly. If one of my employees gets a raise, I have a fixed amount of payroll, so someone usually gets a cut in hours given. Unless, of course, I get a boost in payroll to go with that raise, which NEVER happens!!!! Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Minimuim wage increases hurt small business, and I personally would rather work for a small business at a lower wage my entire life than work for a chain store where you may make that coveted $7.75 an hour, but you're just a number and disgustingly replace-able.
And hate to sound callous, but if you don't think you make enough, deal with it! You live in America and make about 3 times as much as anyone else on earth.
Minimum wage jobs are good for you - they motivate you to something higher. That's why I work full time in the summers - it reminds me why I want to go back to school!
Posted by martha (Member # 141) on :
You're right, Fitz. Sam Walmart has already done irreversable damage. What I want is a time machine.
Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
when I started working I was making $3.10 an hour than the min wage increased to a whopping $4.25. I was so excited about my raise than I was offered assistant manager to go with my raise and got no extra money than I started working 11:00am to 2:00pm and I had like twice the duties! turns out it was not so great.
for every action the is a reaction!
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
minimum wage is not "living wage" nor is it supposed to be. What kinds of jobs pay minimum wage? Jobs that require no markitable skills whatsoever. Garbage collectors make more than minimum wage, many fast food casheirs make more than minimum wage. Wal-mart pays more than minimum wage. Since when does anyone have the right, to screw off all they want in highschool, never learning a thing, never sacrificing anything, never going to college, and then demand that they make a certain amount of money doing what even, mentally handicapped people can do. please.
Posted by Forrest (Member # 5555) on :
Hey, for all of you that haven't noticed that America is a capitalist economy, it is the main reason we are the power we are today (yes i know there are lots of you who disagree, but name a really wealthy, powerful socialist country...... that's what I thought).
Yes it is hard on people when they can't get more wages, but then if they got more skills they would get higher wages. That is why we have public schools and universities. Look at South America, their problem isn't oppurtunity, it is education.
So Personally I say keep the min. wage down and give more scholarships. Then it isn't a hand out anymore.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:What kinds of jobs pay minimum wage? Jobs that require no markitable skills whatsoever.
Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. There are law firms in my area that pay minimum wage to start to paralegals who are expected to have at least a two year degree as a paralegal and two to three years' experience in the field. I only had the degree and experience as an intern working for a judge - which they didn't count as experience at all because I wasn't paid for the work. They wouldn't even look at my resume.
Also, a couple of years ago, when I was thinking it might be fun to go to school to be a librarian, I did a little research. Several universities and other libraries were looking to hire people to work in their libraries with a minimum requirement of possession of a master's degree - at minimum wage. That elimiated that idea.
I don't think having a master's degree, or having several years' experience in a field qualifies as "no marketable skills whatsoever."
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Hack... All I know is that when I was getting even just a little over minimum wage, it was not good...
That could have been the job, though...
Posted by Mikal (Member # 5564) on :
Minimum wage is definitely too low for those trying to support themselves, let alone those supporting their family. It's not much of a problem for me though, since, although I make minimum wage, Im only 16, and live in CA, where it's 6.75.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
... and I am laughing.
The best thing to do, I believe, is nothing. It should not be raised, but as it is already in place, it should not be messed with. Disturbing it would hurt people until equilibrium was restored, and then we would be in about the same position as we were, only older.
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
I dunno...I'm not an economist.
*Shrug*
People on minimum wage should be able to not starve to death. It may be their fault they have minimum wage...or, they may have had the tpe of backrounds found among Hatrackers.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
quote:Believe me, I know this proposal is very simplistic, but there is a possibility minimum wage could be scaled for age.
*Shakes head in disgust*
Okay bud, there is no way I'm doing the same work as someone else and having it mandated that I should be paid less. If the company wants to make that their policy, then I'll just leave. But that would never be acceptable across the entire economy. If you want government meddling go to Europe.
[/rant]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Another problem with raising minimum wage is that small businesses have to lay off employees as well. Many small businesses have hired help who are really just extra and not necessary. When it becomes more unprofitable to keep that extra hired help small businesses may lay them off.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
The main difficulty is in perception. Raising minimum wage doesn't make everyone richer all of a sudden. Money doesn't grow on trees after all. There has to be somewhere in the system that gives to make up for the new expedeniture. As NFL mentioned, that could involve layoffs. It could also involve passing costs on to customers; making minimum wage useless in end analyisis. It just shifts wealth to different parts of the middle and lower classes; it doesn't increase their overall piece of the pie.
I don't really see any problem minimum wage could solve that can't be solved by unions and collective bargaining instead. If someone can enlighten me, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
quote: People on minimum wage should be able to not starve to death.
I do not know of anywhere in this country, where anyone would unwillingly starve to death. If you need food, you will get it. Simple as that. There are food shelters in EVERY city, churches in EVERY city that will give you food. Food for every week if needed.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: I do not know of anywhere in this country, where anyone would unwillingly starve to death. If you need food, you will get it. Simple as that. There are food shelters in EVERY city, churches in EVERY city that will give you food. Food for every week if needed.
Oh REALLY!?!?!?!? I was there a number of years ago. Salvation Army, Good Neighbor Cupbord as well as the other entire THREEE in my county. They had a rule, you get help once and ONLY once per YEAR! I was even battling social services for food stamps so I could feed my kids. It took going to my frelling CONGRESSMAN to get help started for my family on the short term. What may be true in YOUR area may not hold true for the rest of the country. You might want to remember that.
Bookwyrm
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
what area of the country are you in bookwyrm?
Also, I do not know all your circumstances, but was there any family around that could have helped you? Why was there a need for food? did you lose your job? How did you get out of this situation? Was there any day that you did not have anything to eat, and had to wait until the next day. And I do mean, going all day without eating anything. I understand if you don't want to talk about it. Also, did you try calling any of the local churches? I know that many churches have programs, they just don't advertise it.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
As Chris Rock once said, "Minimum wage is a nice way of saying, 'We'd pay you less, but it is against the law!'"
There's a lot of truth in that. It sets a benchmark below which people are being exploited. Currently, however, I feel that the minimum wage has become excessively exploitive. It hasn't in any way kept pace with inflation and previous raises in minimum wage have not hurt the economy, having actually improved it to some degree.
Those businesses that typically lay off employees because of a 25 cent minimum wage hike per hour are usually one of two things: running on to narrow of a margin or are actively exploiting their workers. A small business that can't afford to pay a worker say $6 an hour probably doesn't need the employee or is being run pretty poorly. Sad, but true.
I mean, think about it. $5.15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 50 weeks out of the year works out to: $10,300 a year. Take home on that will be about $8,500 after social security, federal and state tax, plus unemployment. Now figure in el cheapo rent at $250/month, you're down to $5,500 bucks. Let's say utilities are pared down to $200 bucks a month, you're down to $3,100 a month. Hmm, let's go real cheap and take the bus to and from work each day, call it $250 a year (dollar a day of work).. $2,850. Two pairs of jeans and four t-shirts a year, one pair of cheap sneakers: $100. $2,750 and falling. Random, cheap, over the counter medications for colds: $100. $2,650. Food for a year (el cheapo store brands, no eating out) $5 a day (for three cheap meals) $1,825... let's see, we're down to: $825. After all of that, if you really really scrimp and save, you have a whopping $2.26 a day left over to walk around on and contribute discretionary funds to the economy.
And shame on you if you get really sick, or your TV breaks or you want to go to school or even get a haircut now and then...
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
One thing that is almost ALWAYS left out of the minimum wage debate is that many collective bargaining agreements are tied to the minimum wage. For example if a union negotiates a wage of $16.00 per hour, oftentimes the contract doesn't read "$16.00 per hour" but will read "3.106 times the federal minimum wage.
The reason that Ted Kennedy, et al, are trying so hard to get the minimum wage increased has less to do with increasing the wage for those actually earning the minimum wage, than it has to do with giving the unions a pay raise without them having to renegotiate their wages. In the above example, if the minimum wage was raised to $7.50 per hour, the workers don't get a $2.35 raise, they get a $7.29 raise to $23.29 per hour.
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
quote:I mean, think about it. $5.15 an hour for a 40-hour week, 50 weeks out of the year works out to: $10,300 a year. Take home on that will be about $8,500 after social security, federal and state tax, plus unemployment. Now figure in el cheapo rent at $250/month, you're down to $5,500 bucks. Let's say utilities are pared down to $200 bucks a month, you're down to $3,100 a month. Hmm, let's go real cheap and take the bus to and from work each day, call it $250 a year (dollar a day of work).. $2,850. Two pairs of jeans and four t-shirts a year, one pair of cheap sneakers: $100. $2,750 and falling. Random, cheap, over the counter medications for colds: $100. $2,650. Food for a year (el cheapo store brands, no eating out) $5 a day (for three cheap meals) $1,825... let's see, we're down to: $825. After all of that, if you really really scrimp and save, you have a whopping $2.26 a day left over to walk around on and contribute discretionary funds to the economy.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that the federal minimum wage is way to low a figure to be considered a liveable wage for an adult. But there are a numbe of things that you are leaving out of the equation.
1) If you are making $10,300 per year, you are NOT paying any federal income tax. Adjust your W-4 to keep it from being withheld (unless you like giving an interest free loan to the govt just to get a "refund" later.
2) There are lots of other programs, EITC, AFDC, WIC, etc that are used to supplement families that are trying to make it on a minimum income.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Personally, I think that Unions have become a bigger problem to the working class than an assistance. And tying their wages to the minimum wage just screws the whole situation that much more. The Unions want it, the big employers don't. And there's where the worm is found in the apple. It's not about the lowest wage earners getting a living wage, it's about an industrial base in the country that has wrangled itself (from both ownership and workers) into a dying field of business.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
The thing with unions is that either they should stay or minimum wage. The two of them together just makes things complicated and is probably unnecesary. Workers who have a decent union will be able to negotiate their wages above what is considered minimum wage now without having it mandated by the feds.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
For you Wal-Mart bashers out there, there is another side to consider.
What is the value of that $.
If 1 hours work will buy you X-amount of merchandise. Wal-Mart, Free Trade, etc has drastically lowered the costs of things, and in many cases, increased the quality of the product you are buying. Hence the same 1 hour of work that I did 10 years ago will buy more now, even if the wage didn't go up.
To counter that is inflation, which says that $1 is not worth as much now as it was. So if Minimum Wage stayed Par with inflation, the value of 1 hour increases because now we can buy stuff that we couldn't before.
Oh, and yes, you can starve in this country. Or you can die from the heat because you can't afford to turn your AC on, or you can freeze because you cannot afford a place to stay and all the shelters are filled. A woman in my office went through a nasty divorce. She got tricked by her husband, who got everything. Her lawyer didn't show for the court date, so she got screwed. She ended up working minimum wage jobs, and going days without food. When you have to pay car payments or not have a car to take you to your job, and you need to pay rent, and medical bills, some days its mandatory that you don't buy food. Nor can you get it donated because they look at you and say, "You have a job. You don't need it."
You won't hear of people starving to death in the US because before you starve, you get weak. Once you get weak, diseases attack. It is from the diseases that you die.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
pwiscombe, what you cited about union contracts is not left out of any minimum wage debate that goes beyond rhetoric. Nor the broader points that any m.w. increase contributes to inflation. But inflation exists with or without m.w. increases. There has been inflation since the last m.w. increase appoximately 6 years ago, steadily eroding the buying power of people earning m.w. (along with every one else.) It's time for an increase. As far as m.w. increases causing job loss, I cite three economists, one a MIT Nobel Laureate, who argue it has little effect on job loss. link
quote: Supporters point to a controversial study by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger of minimum wage employees in New Jersey, which found little or no impact on employment. Economist Robert Solow, an MIT Nobel Laureate, wrote in a 1995 New York Times article that the “main thing about the research is that the evidence of the job loss is weak.... And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests the impact on jobs is small.”
Plenty of economists who disagree, of course. It's such a complicated field there's rarely consensus about anything.
[ August 22, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote:what area of the country are you in bookwyrm?
Also, I do not know all your circumstances, but was there any family around that could have helped you? Why was there a need for food? did you lose your job? How did you get out of this situation? Was there any day that you did not have anything to eat, and had to wait until the next day. And I do mean, going all day without eating anything. I understand if you don't want to talk about it. Also, did you try calling any of the local churches? I know that many churches have programs, they just don't advertise it.
I live in South Carolina though I'll be moving soon. The reason I lost my job was the doctors retired me due to uncontrolled seizures. Down here seizures are a major stigma to begin with. With no money coming in but the S.O.'s disability check, (which was less than 400 per month) there was either money for food or money for a roof. There was no family nearby to help and no way to get to them. Car got reposessed ( I actually called the finance company and explained what happened. They were very understanding and pleasant to deal with) It took 2 yerars to finally get approved for disability which by then of course we were totally destitute. Yes, there were many times myself and my S.O. went without eating so that the kids would have food. They came first.
All of the churches went under the Good Neighbor Cupboard umbrella. They consolidated all their various charities under the one roof and they all adhered to that with a singlemindedness. If you called them they referred you to the Cupboard.
It got to a point I actually considered writing bad checks in order to get food into the house. Not junk, nothing fancy, nothing frivolous but actual honest to God food for every day eating. At least I had a couple of good friends that would help when they could which was a stop-gap. But they had their own families to tend to first.
It was a very frugal time and not one I would care to repeat.
BookWyrm
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: Oh, and yes, you can starve in this country. Or you can die from the heat because you can't afford to turn your AC on, or you can freeze because you cannot afford a place to stay and all the shelters are filled. A woman in my office went through a nasty divorce. She got tricked by her husband, who got everything. Her lawyer didn't show for the court date, so she got screwed. She ended up working minimum wage jobs, and going days without food. When you have to pay car payments or not have a car to take you to your job, and you need to pay rent, and medical bills, some days its mandatory that you don't buy food. Nor can you get it donated because they look at you and say, "You have a job. You don't need it."
You couldn't be more right. I had an easier time getting on the medicaid rolls than I did trying to get food stamps. The Social Services agency actually tried to give me food stamps when I applied for Medicaid. I refused because its not something I need now. Did I want to go on Medicaid? No. But I had no choice. At 564 per month that leaves me little for medical things and right now I'm facing a 14 tooth extraction on the 2nd of next month. My health is at risk is the ONLY reason I'm doing this now. My seizure meds over the past 20 plus years have taken a heavy toll on my teeth. But back to the point. You have to jump through so many hoops the gov't has set up that it takes forever to get anything when you're employed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This makes me thankful that I have insurance. But after my recent gall bladder surgery ($18,000) I still have about $1,500 in bills for my co-pay, deductible etc. As I got out of college a year ago and we bought a house, we don't have large savings buffers at the moment, though we are working on them.
But I have an interesting ethical question for you. Today I called up the hospital and asked them if I could pay their bill (the largest at $1,000) over 3 months just to pace it out. I expected them to charge me interest. Instead, the lady said she was authorized to lower the bill by 20% if I paid it all at once. So I did, knowing that it will be a bit tight for us for the next two weeks until I'm paid again. (I already set money aside for our Jatraquero gettogether tomorrow so don't worry Tom D you will get re-imbursed for the tickets).
But, now I'm feeling slightly guilty. Clearly hospitals overcharge and I guess build the "interest" part of the payment in on the front end. However they do perform a valuable service to the community. That $200 that I didn't pay could have helped them with other more serious cases that never get paid.
I guess the solution is to take $200 when money isn't quite as tight and donate it to the charity wing of their hospital or something.
But, should I be feeling guilty about this?
AJ
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
4.50 an hour. that was my first job. my name, apparantly, though i wore a nametag, became "skinny busboy" as soon as a clocked in.
i beat them to death with their own pancakes. i called it an intangible benefit. money, after all, is not everything.
[ August 22, 2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I personally think the Minimum Wage is the minimum amout required to pacify the common man, preventing him from picking up axes and shovels, storming down to City Hall and whacking the living daylights out of the local politicians.
I completely support being compensated for being educated and getting that career, or being able to manipulate a capitalistic economy and become a business-savvy entrepreneur and make a living through investments and business ventures.
The state of Pennsylvania is doing some interesting things with their economy that started me thinking about minimum wage. PA uses its lottery to finance a prescription program for elderly patients 65 and older who meet income requirements. Basically, the program is for indigent patients that cannot afford medication, and there are 2 different forms depending on income. PA is also looking into installing slot machines in the Pittsburgh area and using the revenue to reduce property taxes for residents, off-setting increasing school taxes as well.
These programs are wonderful, but I wish there were something more that the Federal Government could do to help.
The posts thus far are very interesting, and I especially enjoyed how every criticism of minimum wage was countered with a rebuttal that humbled the original author. I live in an economically-repressed area and people live on $5.50 an hour. I see it every day.
Cavalier, your comments were annoying (I personally thought they may have been as myopic as mine) and would be considered offensive, if I were not a very nice guy. But, as everyone else, your opinion is respected and I welcome any other insights you might have.
I suppose that what I am suggesting is a luxury tax on income levels over say $200,000/year that would directly augment minimum wage. Maybe this is all a Robin Hood-like pipe dream, but I am not trying to change the world, just trying to think through this problem with the help of some friends.
BookWyrm I found your comments to be very enlightening and humbling for all of us and hopefully everyone is better educated from your stories.
Sopwith thanks for the breakdown. That was very very good.
Also getting to the center of what is eating at me is that our poor of our nation have several options that other countries do not offer. I become angry when I see people on Medicaid with cellphones and pagers, and I work with a mom with 3 kids who makes $6 an hour, who has serious difficulty making ends meet. I feel that there should be a concerted effort to reward those who choose to work as opposed to going on welfare, by augmenting their income or by increasing their wage.
But that is an entirely different argument.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Jeesh Alucard...
The first post I'll give you. It was bit more standoffish than I would have liked (it was late, or early depending on how you look at it) and I was kinda grumpy. It wasn't meant to be personally offensive. Though, I stand by the principal that wage scale shouldn't be determined by age.
I'm not sure what's "annoying", "offensive", or "myopic" about my other posts. I'm just saying that unions alone could stand in for minimum wage. I don't think there's anything particularly offensive about that. I'm looking to see if someone has a compelling reason to make me think otherwise.
[ August 22, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Cav,
The first post was the one that was offensive. I am curious though: Have you ever belonged to a union? If so, then I take your comment a bit more seriously, but if not, then I am skeptical.
You see, I belonged to a union, Teamsters to be specific. Still have a union card somewhere around here. After being a teamster for 3 years, all I was guaranteed was paying my union dues. I found union by-laws to protect the very employees that employers actually needed to terminate, but could not without conforming to union regulations.
That is one of the myopic conclusions I am eluding to. In some practices, I think unions actually do what they are intended to do. But with the risk of corruption and inefficiency due to size, some unions are just revenue for the few who control the many.
I also believe that you are over-inflating your value in this statement:
quote: Okay bud, there is no way I'm doing the same work as someone else and having it mandated that I should be paid less. If the company wants to make that their policy, then I'll just leave.
I personally would have no problem if teenagers between the age of 15-17 worked at one payscale and adults worked at another. But the excellent point was made that employers would stack help that was 17 and under. However, currently, there are federally-mandated laws limiting how many hours a minor can work. My point is that if I were 16 year-old working at Wal-Mart and they paid me $1 less per hour than a 22 year-old mom with 2 kids, then I would not balk at that.
At least your statement is consistent with unions and the rights they afford employees. With unions, you could work TWICE as hard as me or that woman, and we ALL MAKE THE SAME WAGE, guaranteed. In fact, you cannot get a merit raise, because that is against union bilaws. You get paid on a scale like everyone else, productivity aside. This is an environment that breeds laziness.
In essence, I prefer the system we have now as opposed to industry-wide unions controlling all labor, and that is the result, first-hand, of what unions can and cannot let me accomplish.
On a personal note, I am not offended at your recent posts and hope we can get along well enough to at least argue with each other...
[ August 22, 2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
I was in a union for a short amount of time (some offshoot of the AFL-CIO, a baggers thing). While the people who needed firing didn't neesarily get fired fast as I'dve liked, the union did help my pay. I was getting 8/hr before taxes and dues. Considering I was 15 at the time and the market (my town) was saturated with kids looking for work, had the union not been there, they easily could have talked me down to minimum wage just to keep my job. The union, if a touch burecratic, kept my pay high, my job secure, and guranteed me raises.
And while it's true that merit pay is typically banned by bylaw (though this is not necesarily so), there is more than one way to reward productive people. Promotion, getting more hours (usually the union standard for hours is pretty low, low enough to be inconvenient), and benefits (like a $25 gift certificate to the store being worked at) are three ways that I can think of off the top of my head.
I'm a fan of small unions (the one factory union) that are loosely affiliated, not the giant organizatons that have sprung up. A good example is the cafe I work in now. We aren't "unionized" but the 25 or so employees do band together on issues like break policy and salary negotiations. (Though it's not as formal as I'm making it sound.) I see nothing wrong with a little "neighborhood" union like that.
I disagree with your two payscale argument because it seems like age-discrimination to me. You're don't seem like you're 17 so of course it doesn't bother you all that much. Assuming you made two different minimum wages (minors and non-minors) even people in unions would be affected, as they negotiate pay based on the minimum wage. I sympathize with the 22 year old woman with the kids but if she works the same hours as me doing the same job, and we've been there the same amount of time, then we should be paid the same. My labor and time doesn't suddeny become worth less because she decided to have 2 kids. Plus, if you take a job with benefits (some medical, dental, etc.) then a minor is already being paid less overall in a sense, as the minor is unlikely to utilize those benefits that the 22 year old mother would.
My overinflating value statement: I'm perfectly aware I'm not that valuable. My point by saying this is that: 1) I will stand by my priniples and will not tolerate being discriminated against by virtue of my age. 2)I recognize the right of employers to pay however they want. If I have a problem I'll leave. My issue is if the government makes two separate M.W. amounts that it would be legitimizing the fact that the labor of youth workers is inherently worth less.
Edit to add: Also on a perosnal note, the first post was overly cranky. Anybody can argue, hopefully we can discuss things, ja?
[ August 22, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Cavalier ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Uh, huh. Spoken like a teenager who lives with mommy and daddy. How about this rule. In order to even get a job, you have to be independent? That way, there won't be any teenagers to we need to worry about taking away jobs from 22 year old mothers of 2.
Sheesh.
Just so you know, my husband has a B.A. (English and Advertising) and a B.S. (Theater and Film) and one of his coworkers has a Masters (Sports Therapy) and they both make less than $30,000 a year. Training isn't worth the time unless you actually can get a job in which to use it. You know what? I'm all for paying for a college education. Just as soon as the college guarantees decent jobs after graduation. And my decent, I don't me working on a concrete floor in an unairconditioned building in the 107 degree heat.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, my husband has this one trait that really annoys me. He dislikes women (surprise!) Anyway, he told this story once about when he was in the Army and they were moving these huge spools of cable. There was a woman who was of the same rank and pay who couldn't lift the spool up onto the truck and asked for help. He wouldn't help her because "Hey, she was getting paid the same as I was. Why should I have to do her work, too?"
I've mostly broken him of this particular view (I know where he sleeps and I know where the knives are ) but it occasionally still comes up. Usually while we are watching reality tv. Eddie Murphy Raw also did a number on his head. And Steven Spielberg's divorce. Men. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
No, but you can threaten them. Fear makes 'em. . . civilized. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
P.S. Kayla Psssssstttt!
Not to sound like a sloped-forehead-small-cranium- knuckle-dragging Neandethral, but who was your first post (before the Army story) directed to?
[ August 22, 2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Cavalier, of course. (Yeah, I know, I know, not a teenager.)
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
My Biology B.S. ended up being just that in the job market. When I unexpectedly had to leave college, the best I could find was washing used buses. Then I was fired from that and ended up cleaning Cracker Barrel at night. Not minimum wage in either case, but sometimes I didn't feel that made up for it. (I am no physical specimen--after long hours of menial work I am left exhausted.)
Theoretically the arguments for raising the minimum wage are good ones, but as has been said before, employers will just cut hours or lay off workers. Some people may benefit, but others will be left without any work at all. I speak from experience--there's no question in my mind that Cracker Barrel makes a fat profit, but I am constantly being sent home early due to "labor cost" being too high, and no one ever makes overtime unless there is a real catastrophe. (Actually, this week I have 56-odd hours, but only because the other janitor was shanghaied to the disaster of a store in Mt. Vernon temporarily. I'm not sure it was worth the nervous breakdown I had this morning.)
Posted by Forrest (Member # 5555) on :
I hate to be the pure capitalist but that is my major, economics, and It's all just supply and demand. Education and training are important but they have to be in a field that is in demand. No one wants to go into the steel industry cause american steel is dieing. America is based on markets and so if you want to get ahead you have to train in something that is marketable. I wish I could just be an actor, but my family would starve and so I chose econ, something that i can market and make a living at. Capitalism isn't perfect, people suffer, but I think that Unions and min. wage can often do more harm then good.
I grew up in Michigan and it seemed that every summer one of the Motor companies were striking, and I really think that is why american cars suck. Cause other countries didn't have to worry about workers. Now I know that in some of those countries people are exploited but I still go back to my original thought that a well thought out training program, that doesn't just let people choose what they want to learn but directs them to a marketable skill would be better than unions and min. wage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do American cars still suck?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
so I chose econ...
a well thought out training program, that doesn't just let people choose what they want to learn but directs them to a marketable skill--Forrest, sounds a little inconsistent. You get to choose, but others don't?
Cause other countries didn't have to worry about workers--Forrest. Yes, if only management could screw workers more efficiently in America, we'd all be better off.
I have mixed feelings about unions--they have often become corrupt and unworkable systems but they have done plenty of good for workers as well.
Posted by Cavalier (Member # 3918) on :
Kayla, how do you manage to always say something that is guranteed to push my buttons? Are you just talented or something?
quote: Uh, huh. Spoken like a teenager who lives with mommy and daddy.
Just forgetting for a moment, just a moment, that this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, I'm not exactly sure what your point is supposed to be. So, I, who am legally obliged to live with my parents (though I like them and probabaly would anyway), somehow am not allowed to speak? My opinion counts for less? Are my bills somehow easier to pay? Cause my parents aren't paying them for me. Things like clothes, food, and whatnot don't pay for themselves. Is this some sort of rebuttle of anything I've said or is it just the pissant whining from a 20+ year old that thinks they can win an argument just by saying, "I'm older!"?
quote: In order to even get a job, you have to be independent? That way, there won't be any teenagers to we need to worry about taking away jobs from 22 year old mothers of 2.
Practically, because that'd be utterly ignorant. Minors make up enough of the work force in jobs no adult would take (lifeguards during day, camp conseulors, etc.) that firing them all for your draconian measure would play havoc with employment for some time. Plus who decides when you're "independent"? Does that mean when I'm 40 I can't receive a gift from my dad because I'm "dependent on him" and thus, cannot be employed? That's nicely ambiguous methinks.
However, it can be ambiguous since ideologically, it's also a horrible idea. Let's keep "non-independent minors from working"; why you ask? Why not? Then we can keep old people from working too, they're gonna die anyway right? What other people's freedoms are you going to trample in your quest for social parity? Just tell me straight up, do you think it's okay to abuse the freedoms of one group to socially further another, cause that's the impression I get from your post in this topic and others.
quote: He dislikes women (surprise!) Anyway, he told this story once about when he was in the Army and they were moving these huge spools of cable. There was a woman who was of the same rank and pay who couldn't lift the spool up onto the truck and asked for help. He wouldn't help her because "Hey, she was getting paid the same as I was. Why should I have to do her work, too?"
I hope you're not trying to imply this is what I said, cause I definitely didn't. My situation is more akin to the idea that the two could cooperate moving the spools around and at the end of the hour; the man gets paid less than the woman because she has a kid or something. This is what is unfair in my eyes, doing the same exact work and being paid less. But I'm sure Kayla would have absolutely no problem with that right?
Try actually refuting some of my points instead of just attacking my age (this post), my race (affirmative action thread), or my social status (affirmative action thread).
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Cav, dude, seriously, I thought you were older than that. I was teasing about you being a teenager. However, I don't think a graduated pay scale is really a bad idea. Teens generally don't have experience. They can only work certain hours, as an employer, I used to have to go over all the teenagers schedules and make sure they were only working certain hours and had less than the maximum hours allowed a week. I also had to train them, not just train them for the job, but also train them in common sense things like showing up for work on time, wearing the proper attire, not talking to their friends instead of working, you know, basic work ethics. Now, if I have to take all that extra time for some kid who will quit at the drop of a hat, because after all, they don't have to work to eat and have a roof over his heads, why shouldn't I pay him less?
Secondly, did you know that men used to get raises every time they had a kid? Think about that. The single/married but childless man would make less than the married guy with kids! Oh, the unfairness of it all! Give me a break. Life sucks. It always has, it always will. It's unfair. Always has been, always will be. You're lucky your a guy. You should try being a woman. Even being a woman thirty years ago sucked more than it does now. Did you know that my mother-in-law, who was a teacher, couldn't get a credit card in her own name when she got divorced? Do you know why? Because she was a woman! She made more money that her ex-husband, but he could get one and she couldn't. And the only reason she finally got approved for a mortgage was because her uncle talked to a fellow "lodge" member who worked at a bank.
I seriously don't think teens should be paid less. I just thought your outrage was a bit ridiculous. Think about it. Many states already have graduated licenses for kids. They limit the hours of the day and hours per week kids can work. Why shouldn't we graduate their pay? I can see why the thought might anger you, but it's not going to happen, so suck it up dude. It's a theoretical discussion.
quote:Just tell me straight up, do you think it's okay to abuse the freedoms of one group to socially further another, cause that's the impression I get from your post in this topic and others.
Um, when that group has abused the freedoms of the other group to advance in the first place? Yeah. Once again, sorry dude, but if you'd like someone to blame for that, take it up with either your ancestors, or they system that's in place right now that gives you advantages that you haven't even begun to realize.
quote:I hope you're not trying to imply this is what I said, cause I definitely didn't. . . This is what is unfair in my eyes, doing the same exact work and being paid less.
Uh, no, not really. I've trained hundreds of kids for whom it was their first job. Trust me, none of them were doing the same job as the rest of the people. And just by hiring them, I had to do a lot of extra work to make sure we were staying within the law. Oh, and another thing. With older employees, I could pretty much make them work whenever I wanted. Yeah, we always tried really hard to give people the hours they wanted, but sometimes, I'd need shifts covered and there was no one else that could do it. We rotated around who was going to get stuck with the crappy shifts, but you know what? Our younger teens didn't have to work those crappy shifts. Either they already had 20 hours, or they couldn't work that late, or they had homework/family obligations. . . So, why should an 18 year old who has to work till 3 am at McDonald's only be getting paid as much as a 15 year old who can only work 20 hours a week and has to be off by 7 pm on weeknights?
quote: Try actually refuting some of my points instead of just attacking my age (this post), my race (affirmative action thread), or my social status (affirmative action thread).
Dude, don't take things so personally. I don't even know who you are. I make smart ass comments. It's what I do. I have no idea how old you are, what race you are or what your social status is. Hell, I don't even know what you mean by social status. It looks like you've been at Hatrack a year, but you only have 150 posts. If you've been lurking that long, you know my posting style. I'm kinda hard to miss with over 6,000 posts. You on the other hand, haven't made enough for me to even know how to spell your name without having to look back at it. Get over yourself. Post more. We'll get to know you and then I'll attack your arguments based on your age, race and social status. Till then, whatever you are inferring from my posts is just that. Your inference, not my implication. I just make snide comments. If the shoe happens to fit, it's a coincidence. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Oh, and if your name is Dylan, I'm going to smack you the next time I see you.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
There weren't any google references in that post.
*waits for snide comment*
I have a BA in English which I think is a nearly useless degree. I have plenty of marketable skills but all acquired through jobs and volunteer work I did in high school and college. I make 24,500 a year with a bachelor's. For what I do (bachelor's level human services) this is actually good pay. I'm getting my master's now and in three years when I have my MSW, I'll finally make somewhere in the low 30's.
Obviously money-wise, I'm in the wrong field.
I don't understand how families could make ends meet on minimum wage. When I do the math, I make somewhere around $11/hr. I got a job at a women's shelter my senior year in college and they offered me $7/hr. I did the math and figured that working full time on that salary, I couldn't support myself. I have no choice but to support myself as I'm estranged from my family (long story).
So I had to go looking. I found a job in "nearby" Lawrence, MA for $10 something an hour. Despite the 30-45-60 min commute (YOU Deal with traffic on 93 South in NH and MA, hellish hours (forced to work 24 hours straight at one point), hellish parts of the job (I was bitten, punched, kicked, scratched, etc, usually daily), crappy supervisors (folks who had no idea what they were doing, ego-driven to the point of their ego over children's safety, Master's level vs. Bachelor's level, etc) I kept the job for nine months because I couldn't find anything that paid more than $9 an hour.
No one really tells you how expensive it is to be a grownup. Rent, food, gas, car, utilities, student loans (paid for school on my own), computer loan (had to get one for school), clothing, healthcare, incidentals (do you want to go to a movie with friends?). I lived check to check, most times not quite squeaking by. Luckily, I have a landlord who is a great guy and those rough spots would let me pay what I could pay when I could pay. I stopped doing much photography for nearly a year because I couldn't afford to buy/develop film. I also really didn't have time with that commute and working 60 hrs/week.
Why didn't anyone warn me that being grownup sucks so much!?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
(I told my son the other day that he could get a job, right out of highschool, where his dad works. He could live at home for 5 years, as most students these days are on the 5 year college plan, and when all his friends are graduating from college and $30-60,000 in debt, if he saved his money, he'd have close to a hundred grand in the bank. I doubt it will happen though. Kids think they know everything and can't wait to get out on their own.)
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I have 2 friends that are medical doctors. Each graduated with about $200,000 or so of debt. But their income will far surpass that over their career.
College is an investment for some and a cost for others depending on the degree and level of education. But in all honesty, one of my doctor friends still lives paycheck to paycheck. Sure they may make $10,000 a month, but student loans, mortgages, taxes, car loans, and other bills nearly consume that amount of income. The problem is that the vast amount of Americans tend to spend what they make, and save money as an afterthought. Heck, many do not have money left to save because of how the economic cycle is stacked against them.
Breaking the debt cycle was very hard for me personally to do. But that is another story.
Kayla your point was a good one about saving money instead of coming out of college in debt, but I still value a college education and hope that with perseverence and determination, the majority of Americans can turn the cost of their education into an investment.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Alucard, I agree. A college education is a great thing. If my son decides that there is something he wants to do and he needs to go to college to do it, I'd be all for it. However, as of now, he has no idea what he wants to do. Somedays it's a cop, somedays it's work with his dad. Also, remember he has a pervasive devlopmental delay. I don't know how that will affect him when he's older, but right now, I'd love it if he lived at home for a while and saved a bunch of money, so he can buy a house and have some security. I worry about his future. Stability is important to him, as are routines. Maybe someday he'll catch up and want to do something really interesting, but having lived in Kansas all his life, he seems to be content to be. . . well, you know. . . countrified. I just don't think he'll ever be in a highly skilled job. He's more of a laid back, do what he's told kinda kid. So, I don't see the point in wasting the money for college if he's just going to end up in a relatively unskilled job.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
than I started working 11:00am to 2:00pm and I had like twice the duties! turns out it was not so great. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)