So you're all for those who are working and have not yet reached the age of majority, receive the "livable" minimum wage even though they are still in school and have not left their parent's home and have little marketable skills.

On the other hand, do companies need a subsidy by creating a less-than-minimum-wage-labor-pool of 16- and 17-year-olds? I didn't think you were the subsidy-creating type.

That is a political move to increase the jobs. Did you think the employer initiated that?

Dude, I was not talking about the fact that some states allow employers to pay 15, 16 and 17-year-olds sub-minimum wage to get them into the workforce.

I was talking about your comment (first quoted block) where you say,
"So you're all for those who are working and have not yet reached the age of majority, receive the "livable" minimum wage even though they are still in school and have not left their parent's home and have little marketable skills."

Then I was suggesting that, if those kids don't need a full minimum wage, in your opinion, then, in your opinion, does someone with a roommate or other avenues to share the costs of a household need a "livable wage". Lets get an answer to these questions first before we move on. I am interested in your answer.

 

It's certainly true that the effect of a zero-sum policy is to shift funds from one group to another. Few (but some) will argue that a minimum wage is not zero-sum. Nothing more is produced, no costs are saved, no resource is utilized more efficiently. It's just another government-mandated wealth transfer.

But I don't think the "loser" is the consumer in this case. Consumers have too many options to end up holding the bag. They'll just take their business elsewhere.

The biggest loser is the young, minority kid that won't be able to get a first job. Somebody willing to work for $5 is forbidden by Big Brother from taking that job. The minimum wage was and remains a purposefully racist policy to protect the wages of middle-age union workers who fear losing their jobs to lower paid minorities trying to get started in the labor market. The policy works.

If you know a young minority looking for work at 2 to $5 per hour, there are plenty of opportunities at half-way houses, Goodwill Industries, Savers stores, and many other non-profits. Check with your local United Way if you cannot find them yourself.

Also, I said it before and I'll say it again, if someone is living in a city with high unemployment, they should do what their parents, grand-parents and great-grandparents did. They should pack up their shit and move to where the jobs are. I was on the road this week from Columbus Ohio to Pittsburgh area and there were plenty of restaurants and gas stations with help wanted signs. Also, plenty of billboards for trucking companies looking for drivers (they pay for training) and nearly every truck for major carriers had signs on the back looking for drivers (over-the-road and local). So, your argument is completely negated if someone is willing to move from their area of 10% unemployment to an area with a labor shortage.

Also, the Pittsburgh Mayor's major long-term concerns is insuring local employers have enough employees. He even did a half-hour interview on a local Sunday news show to discuss what can be done.

 

@GopherT

First, what is the difference between minimum wage and livable minimum wage?

What should unskilled laborers be paid?

Davis-Bacon introduces us to prevailing wage. Truth of the matter is it costs more to live in certain parts of this country. If the states wanted to mandate a minimum wage based on their local info ... good for them. The federal one size fits all is a fantasy.

I believe in fair wages. If you are unskilled, don't expect higher wages.

When the minimum wage increased from 4.90 to 5.05 in NJ, the payrolls at fast food places showed a decrease in FTE of about 4 percent.

The government has many programs to help people to improve their marketable skills.

Of course, some could be the type, as overheard in a beauty parlor,

I find it rude that bill collectors keep calling me.

P.s. that is a no-no shitter.

 

Who or what sets a wage? Free market? A labourer at a heavily subsidized project that has been rammed will get $40/hr wage fresh out of high school... is that a fair wage? Better yet, is that free market? At the beginning of the century projects like these were built literaly on slave labour (thinking of the CN rail here)...

I thought my wage was reasonable ($30/hr) however I cannot afford to buy a house with my salary... question is what is up with housing prices in Canada...

Someone mentioned capitalism earlier, the problem is we live in a highly controlled society where government manipulates everything already to better suit its overlords.

 

@GopherT

First, what is the difference between minimum wage and livable minimum wage?

What should unskilled laborers be paid?

Davis-Bacon introduces us to prevailing wage.

So, you don't want to address the details about your comment of teenagers living at home with parents not needing a livable wage?

 

So, you don't want to address the details about your comment of teenagers living at home with parents not needing a livable wage?

What are their expenses? A livable wage by definition has expenses, including those that meet the most basic physiological needs. Those that live at home typically do not pay for the mortgage or rent, do not pay for utilities, and do not pay for food. They may not pay for a lot of other normal expenses. The same teenagers are just beginning to move from unskilled to some marketable skills.

Once they reach the age of majority ... is a different story.

Even the government allots you an allowance, under the guise of standard deductions (or itemized if you qualify) and exemptions, to cover the basic physiological needs when you file your taxes. In the case of teenagers, and those up to 25 in college, the exemption belongs to the person supporting them.

So, it's hypocritical to say a teenager deserves the "livable" minimum wage when they don't expend the funds on the "livable" physiological needs.

The whole "livable" minimum wage movement is to increase the wages for people to survive.

At 15 per hour it appears a "livable" minimum wage is 31,200.

 

What are their expenses? A livable wage by definition has expenses, including those that meet the most basic physiological needs. Those that live at home typically do not pay for the mortgage or rent, do not pay for utilities, and do not pay for food. They may not pay for a lot of other normal expenses. The same teenagers are just beginning to move from unskilled to some marketable skills.

Once they reach the age of majority ... is a different story.

Even the government allots you an allowance, under the guise of standard deductions (or itemized if you qualify) and exemptions, to cover the basic physiological needs when you file your taxes. In the case of teenagers, and those up to 25 in college, the exemption belongs to the person supporting them.

So, it's hypocritical to say a teenager deserves the "livable" minimum wage when they don't expend the funds on the "livable" physiological needs.

The whole "livable" minimum wage movement is to increase the wages for people to survive.

At 15 per hour it appears a "livable" minimum wage is 31,200.

So, I assume your answer is, "teenagers do not deserve to earn a minimum wave, currently at $7.25/hour, because their parents are covering some of the costs of their 'physiological needs'", correct?

 

Does a teenager earn enough to justify whatever wage the employer pays them?

I don't know. If I did know, I would completely understand the human phenonom of losing 4 times the sales subject to sales tax rate when the government raises the sales tax. That happened in counties that bordered other states. In another instance, why did the payroll FTE drop when NJ raised their minimum wage back years ago? Apparently the businesses with smaller margins didn't have the quantity of sales necessary to cover the additional costs. At minimum, a hourly rate employee costs the employer 15% more than the hourly wage.

Will the market endure the additional costs without some losing their job? Time will tell. Who loses their job? Those the employer feels that don't add value to their company. What are the metrics? The employer decides.

Of course, those that go on unemployment will be shocked at tax time when they fail to take out taxes on that taxable income ... especially if they were on it a long time.

Around here some fast food joints start at 10 per hour.

 

Does a teenager earn enough to justify whatever wage the employer pays them?

I don't know.

OK, thanks. Now I understand that your comment earlier about Teenagers not needing a full minimum wage was just idle chatter and you have no intention of standing behind that claim.

 

Think many of you are still thinking of when you were just starting in the job market, with regard to the minimum wage. Today many jobs, even for adults with families only pay minimum wage. Some in this discussion are probably business owners and paying a higher minimum wage would cut into your bottom line/profits. But explain to me how it is fair to the public at large/tax payers, for companies like Walmart or the company you run, to pay so little that some of their employees need to work two or more jobs or be on welfare to be able to live?

 

But explain to me how it is fair to the public at large/tax payers, for companies like Walmart or the company you run, to pay so little that some of their employees need to work two or more jobs or be on welfare to be able to live?

Interesting , and largely forgotten/overlooked, phenomenon/concept behind that.

If you want more out of life you have to work more or find a way to do more with less.

It's what the "the foreigners are stealing my job' principle is driven by. If someone else knows how to live better than you on less and is willing to work your job and do it better than you at a pay scale you find unacceptable guess what? Your getting replaced by that person!

They didn't steal your job. They just know of a way to live that beats yours thus allowing them to replace you and be content with your former jobs expectations.

I mean, you want the best product for the least cost so why can't an employer also want the best employees they can get for the least as well?

It's sort of the basis and working principle for the 'fair market' concept. If the work is crappy and the employer can't find people willing to do it for what they offer then they have no choice but to raise the pay behind the task to get people who are willing to do it.

 

@GopherT

I don't know because some are worth it an some aren't. It always comes down to experience.

Since the age of 12, my cousin was working. By 16, he was baking wedding cakes and cooking at events.

He was worth more than the minimum wage by the age of 14.

I'm sure you met people who weren't worth their federally mandated minimum wage. So, why has the cry for a livable minimum wage? If one assumes the minimum is a training wage for zero skilled labor, how come some are still stuck in that wage group?

Why do some more their lawn when they can contract it out?

 

@GopherT

I don't know because some are worth it an some aren't. It always comes down to experience.

Since the age of 12, my cousin was working. By 16, he was baking wedding cakes and cooking at events.

He was worth more than the minimum wage by the age of 14.

I'm sure you met people who weren't worth their federally mandated minimum wage. So, why has the cry for a livable minimum wage? If one assumes the minimum is a training wage for zero skilled labor, how come some are still stuck in that wage group?

Why do some more their lawn when they can contract it out?

why are you asking questions instead of simply clarifying with a yes or no on your earlier statement? If you don't have a yes or no, please explain why you made the earlier statement.

 

I think we have been here before:

When the poor don't have enough to buy what the rich are selling, and the rich have everything they need, bad things happen.
Having said that; I don't think a federal minimum wage is the way to fix that. Maybe tax rates.

 

I think we have been here before:

When the poor don't have enough to buy what the rich are selling, and the rich have everything they need, bad things happen.
Having said that; I don't think a federal minimum wage is the way to fix that. Maybe tax rates.

I read this different: when the economy is good, the rich do good. When it takes a crap, the rich take a bigger crap than the rest of us. Methinks you are confusing cause and effect.

 

Oh, and you know that a good portion of that 1% wealth is located around D.C., don't you? Not exactly the industrial epicenter of the world, if you get my drift.

 

I read this different: when the economy is good, the rich do good. When it takes a crap, the rich take a bigger crap than the rest of us. Methinks you are confusing cause and effect.

So I guess you think the last few years have been good?

 

Oh, and you know that a good portion of that 1% wealth is located around D.C., don't you? Not exactly the industrial epicenter of the world, if you get my drift.

Naw. Think stock market.

 

I find it interesting that the groups that oppose minimum wage also often try to outlaw or eviscerate unions by "Right to work" laws or other limitations.
The idea seems to to allow a business to higher a worker as cheap as possible to enhance their bottom line, regardless of whether that person can live on that wage.
How to businesses expect people to buy their products if they only have enough money to barely exist?
The Lord and Serf economy was tied in the middle ages and it didn't work that well for the Serfs.

Sorry but I don't believe that dog-eat-dog capitalism is a good way to run an economy.
Don't get me wrong, I think capitalism is the best economic system there is, but its excesses (monopolies, income and capital concentration, Wall Street shenanigans, etc.) need to be controlled or everything goes to hell (anyone catch that last near depression around 2010).
If you look back, the best economic times for the middle class in the last half century were when the unions were strong.
Now the unions are weak and so is the middle class.

 

If you want more out of life you have to work more or find a way to do more with less

Or retire. I get less in a months pension, than I used get for a weeks work. Only thing saving me is while the guys I worked with were buy a new car or two every year, I was paying double hose payments to pay it off be for retiring.

Also the lowest paid worker in a company is the one that has the biggest work load put on him/her.