Minimum Wage?

[Sepukku]

When I got out of college I took a retail job while I looked for meaningful employment. Little did I know it would take 14 months before I finally found that meaningful employment and I'm off to a great start there, already being promoted once in the first month. I, however, play hockey with a teammate who I worked with at that retail company and I was telling him during warm-ups the other day how sorry I feel for the people who will work there their whole life because they don't have the education and ability to get above that type of work and the minimum wage is in a place where they will always be miserable and are one illness or car wreck away from being truly fucked.

I hope to never return to that type of work and that type of pay, but in regards to a violent revolution balancing the financial scales, I don't think our generation needs a revolution - I think our generation simply needs to remember what it was like to be on the tilted end of this so that when we age and work our way into decision making capacities, we remember what it was like to be fighting for scraps. We don't need to hang CEO's, we just need to remember so that in 20 years there's more of our generation who turned into Warren Buffet "I don't mind paying a heftier tax" individuals, so there's more businesses like Sheetz that offer their cashiers and stock boys and cooks a starting pay $1-$1.50/hr over minimum wage. We really don't need a revolution, we just need to remember when we were in these shoes because CEOs and VPs will age and retire and die and while not every single one of us on BG will become a CEO or VP, members of our generation will fill those shoes and we can make choices to do things differently.

[Ashmada]

Oh, if inequalities become too great, revolutions do happen. Whether they're needed or not or whether we're anywhere near the point where it will or not is debatable, but at some point they just do.

[test123]

You don't see a problem in a whole area being forced to accept below-poverty level wages because that's all they're being offered?
Hell, you provided your own counter-argument: people will always accept lower wages because "it's better than nothing". That's why there has to be a minimum.

I don't think you see the bigger picture here. If an area is suffering from low wages it means that area has high unemployment. Supply is greater then demand. Your "solution" is to fix the price of labor which in turn will cause more unemployment. This is exactly why price fixing is so wrong, it distorts the value of goods and services until the system breaks down.

If you pass into law that supermarkets are only to sell at certain prices then those supermarkets will no longer offer those products since they incur a loss. It is good intended to price fix a product so that the poor will be able to afford it, but it will close the supermarket down.

[Drex]

good, lets get rid of the asshole and find someone willing to work for what would still be an obscene amount of money. And don't tell me we're losing "irreplacable talent" either. I have yet to see a CEO that had the half a brain required to implement practical policy in their workplace. I'd much rather have some of those lowest paid workers move up to the CEO position, where their experience as the bottom of the company can be put to good use making policies that make sense and aren't a big waste of money and irritation to customers/workers.

You do understand that:
a) No one cares about your anecdote. There are plenty of successful CEO's. You don't hear about/see them because good news is boring.
b) He can run the company from outside the country just fine.

Right?

[Quicklet]

Seriously 30 times! It'd take him 3 decades to make what you'd make in a month!

Not commenting on the point you're trying to make, but your math is a little off there.

[hey]

No, it's what I said. If you provide employers with a way to pay less, they will and people will have no choice but to accept because, as you said, "it's better than being jobless".

This is just not true.

R'lyeh forbid you earn only 3000% of what your janitor is earning!
We're talking about a human being, here. And one that does a hard job, too.
3000% is incredibly generous, even. Seriously 30 times! It'd take him 3 decades to make what you'd make in a month!
I'm all for knowledge being rewarded, but keeping the gap between the unskilled and the skilled reasonable isn't a bad idea.

So instead of forcing me to fire my janitor, and contract with a temp agency to fill the job, why don't you just tax me more? Ya know, that way i can still earn a fair pay that isn't based on what my janitor makes, my janitor gets to keep his job, and the extra taxes can actually help people?

Setting $217.5/hr as the most anyone is allowed to make is completely retarded. Sorry, but price fixing just does't solve anything.

Also, it's fucking retarded because it allows for such an obvious loophole. $217.5/hr amounts to around $3m/year if you work 168 hours per week, when you account for constant overtime pay, weekends+holidays, etc.

[Lucavi]

People are inherently conservative

Wrong.

What you meant to say is "Rich people are inherently conservative, because being conservative is the best way to keep one's money."

[test123]

Conservative not in political sense. Humans tend to dislike changes in general. People have their comfort zones, favorite food, TV shows, friends etc, mess with that and people go nuts.

[Plow]

Wrong.

What you meant to say is "Rich people are inherently conservative, because being conservative is the best way to keep one's money."

There's like 40 different interpretations of this you could make, but if you're talking about political standing you're still wrong. A lot of people become more politically liberal the richer they get.

The only really valid impression I could get from what you're saying is personally, i.e. buying a ford explorer instead of a lincoln navigator or whatever. But then there's a shitload of exceptions to that as well heh.

[Ksandra]

Setting $217.5/hr as the most anyone is allowed to make is completely retarded. Sorry, but price fixing just does't solve anything.

so you're saying you don't understand the proposal. gotcha.




unless there is a way to either a. do what kuya said and offer more subsidies to compensate or b. curb the amount the higher ups make in relation to their lower level workers then getting rid of minimum wage is suicide for a lot of people out there.

and a kinda worries me as I feel companies would still find a way to abuse it and the gov will go into even further debt.

[Ashmada]

Well, he's not completely wrong. Tying max salary to the lowest-paid worker is abusable, but the proposal can be reworked: how about "no more than X% more than the average wage of the whole country".
Average wages are always calculated for political reasons, you'd just have to chose an index as the standard.

[hey]

so you're saying you don't understand the proposal. gotcha.

I'm saying people don't deserve $10/hr to clean toilets, and pretty much every business is still going to hire people for minimum wage (or a similar wage if it was gone). If something is worth $7, you don't pay $20 for it just because some retarded rules say you can get something out of it (if you still have any money left, that is!).

[Ksandra]

I'm saying people don't deserve $10/hr to clean toilets,

why?

my point was there is no "the most" when it comes to the percentage. If the ceo can afford to and is making a mil a year or more for himself why shouldn't the janitor get $10 an hour if it means the ceo can get more?

[hey]

why?

Same reason pencils aren't worth a million dollars.

[Ksandra]

Same reason pencils aren't worth a million dollars.

pencils don't need to live on money. Your dumb for comparing the two.

[hey]

pencils don't need to live on money. Your dumb for comparing the two.

I don't see how what they need effects their value. Also, pencil makers need money to live. Your dumb for not realizing that pencils don't make themselves and then teleport to store shelves. If pencils sold for a million dollars each, then hey, everyone involved in making pencils, and getting them to the people who need them would be making lots of money, and isn't that just great!?

If they can't afford to survive, the government should be helping then. Businesses should not be forced to pay more for something than it is worth.

[Ksandra]

I don't see how what they need effects their value.

lmao

Also, pencil makers need money to live. Your dumb for not realizing that pencils don't make themselves and then teleport to store shelves.

show me where I said that. Retarded assumption is retarded and pointless

If pencils sold for a million dollars each, then hey, everyone involved in making pencils, and getting them to the people who need them would be making lots of money, and isn't that just great!?

penicils wouldn't sell for a million dollars. This is so irrelevant to the proposal it really does seem like you don't understand it at all.

If they can't afford to survive, the government should be helping then. Businesses should not be forced to pay more for something than it is worth.

wrong. If the ceo can't afford to survive than the government should be helping those the ceo can't afford to pay. If the ceo is flying around in private jets than fuck them for thinking they need to pay the bare minimum to everyone else.

[hey]

show me where I said that. Retarded assumption is retarded and pointless

I just wanted an excuse to say "your dumb".

penicils wouldn't sell for a million dollars.

Well gee, i wonder why. Maybe it's because they just aren't worth that much?

wrong. If the ceo can't afford to survive than the government should be helping those the ceo can't afford to pay. If the ceo is flying around in private jets than fuck them for thinking they need to pay the bare minimum to everyone else.

What does this even mean? And are you really saying the government helping people who can't afford to get by is wrong?

[Ksandra]

Well gee, i wonder why. Maybe it's because they just aren't worth that much?

have yet to see how that relates to a successful company's janitor's pay. at all.

What does this even mean? And are you really saying the government helping people who can't afford to get by is wrong?

no, pay attention and actually read. Percentages are going to scale based on how much the company is making. if the ceo is making a fuckton of money then they can afford to pay their workers well enough that they wouldn't need government help in the first place. the problem is they won't because they currently don't have to. if the ceo is making jack shit and can't afford to pay their workers well enough then the gov't should step in and give money assistance to the workers.

I am all for gov't assistance. I am against the gov't being forced to give assistance because the ceo refuses to give up one of their multiple jets to help their own workers.

[Coren]

I think that Hey has to be a troll. That's the only logical explanation.

Otherwise, it seems like there's some agreement that rich people are assholes. Rich people will not stop being assholes until the government forces them to. Ergo, tying max CEO compensation to the lowest paid worker (or to some indexed national average) seems like a decent plan.