Mimimum wage - the reality

[KazooSkinsFan]

One last comment though: I'm not poilitical enough to consdier myself liberal or conservative. Label me and my opinions as you feel fit. I don't know why everything has to have a label, but if that's what let's you sleep at night, then good for you!

Um...when I said I don't think you're "liberal" because sometimes you argue liberal points and sometimes you don't, I got a lecture that you're not a label?

Thought I said that.

I remember why I don't get involved in these types of discussions. I don't have time nor desire to break things down line by line and 'debate,' so I'll bow out.

Well, my question you aren't answering doesn't involve any line by line debates. It's a simple question. Why exactly do you think people are not qualified to decide what's best for themselves? Why would someone take a $5 job if they have a better option? Don't they KNOW what their options are and which is the best for them? Why do you want politicians backed by the power of government guns to prevent them from taking a job a business offered and they WANT to accept?? Isn't the freedom to make our own choices why you were in the military?

These are just different ways of phrasing the same question. And for the record I am pressing you because I do not think you are a liberal religious fanatic who believes it's your right to not only make your own choice but mine and everyone else's as well. That's why I do not understand why you think in this case government should do that.

[VetSkinsFan]

I believe the ignorant and the weak need protection from the strong.

I know a lot of liberal/conservative/ect gets thrown around, so I just wanted to make it known (if it wasn't obvious enough). It was hardly a lecture.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I believe the ignorant and the weak need protection from the strong

Well, as a general statement I'm not sure I can argue what you said, but I don't understand how it applies to minimum wage.

You describe them yourself as "weak," which I agree with. They are some combination of low skill, education, experience, reliability which doesn't qualify them for a better paying job.

So how is it "protection" of the weakest qualified employees to remove the choice to get a job at whatever wage they can get? Isn't what they need to improve their wages the opportunity to actually work to do that? How does preventing them from working protect them?

And you really think that even the lowest skill workers don't know if their best option is this job or not? You trust politicians making blanket choices over individuals making personal choices over their own lives simply justified with the sweeping statement the weak need protection from the strong?

[KazooSkinsFan]

Just to add to this Vet because I was thinking about it. The concept of government "protecting" the weak from the strong. There is nothing wrong with what you want to achieve. The basic point I drive to with liberalism is it doesn't accomplish it's objective. Never. So in this case:

Rational businesses do everything to maximize profit. Including what they pay their employees. Employees with experience and education provide owners with skills that lead to profit, so they pay more. Workers with low skills get low pay because they offer nothing that someone else with a little ambition couldn't come in and quickly learn and do. They don't add a lot of profit to the business, they are doing basic work that somebody, almost anybody can do.

So what happens with a "minimum wage?" Take my case. Three employees who showed up and went through the motion doing as little as possible which is why they have low skills weren't worth what they were getting paid and when the government gave them a raise I let them go. So far I have only replaced two and they are getting as much work done as the three did. Frankly they are less effort to manage, so I'm really saving money. I am not going to replace the third right now.

So, your objective was to "protect" the weak. Let's review:

The Strongest: Kaz: I own a business because I earned a BS from Maryland, an MS from Virginia Tech, an MBA from Michigan. I worked as an IT developer, project manager. Then a software architect and got my MS at night. I got my MBA and spent the next 13 years in management and management consulting. All the time I saved like a son of a gun. Then I invested that buying a company for my wife to run and another for myself to run. I am strong because I made rational decisions and worked my butt off.

The new employees. They got jobs in a tough job market. Eventually they would have anyway, they have some motivation and work hard.

The old employees. Sitting on the sofa watching TV. They weren't motivated before I bought the company, when I was taking over, when I was warning them they weren't productive enough or when they were let go. No one who works for me was the slightest surprised any of them were let go, they were always low performers.

So, here's the point. I am strongest because I think in the longest term and make the most rational decisions. When the minimum wage went up, I continued to do that. The ones who replaced them did fine. The losers were the lowest value employees who just aren't motivated.

So, inherently, when government manipulates the workforce. Who is going to analyze the changes and make rational decisions? The strong, it's why they ARE strong. Who is going to do OK. People who at least work hard, it'll work out. Who's going to do the worst? The ones who are low skill because they DON'T react. They don't analyze. They don't try very hard.

That is the reality of ALL liberalism. It's designed to manipulate markets according to liberal ideals. But even liberals in the marketplace don't act according to those ideals. No one does. That is why liberalism does not and can not work. That is why it inherently harms those whom it is intended to help. That is why the manipulations always backfire.

[VetSkinsFan]

In your one example of it, I can agree. You're not the example I am trying to illustrate, but that the exact opposite.

I hope you're open-minded enough to realize that there are unscrupulous people out there and there WILL be the strong taking advantage of the weak. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, but I feel it would be a lot worse without ANY government oversight. To deny it's a plausible alternative is naive.

And as for some people being weak; it's true. Is it not in our best interest to take care of fellow man? I'm not talking about the welfare collecting, scamming, stealing, illegal types, but people who just don't know any better. Or the people that fall under the unscrupulous employer.

[Bob 0119]

I'm also an employer and it's not even as simple as firing the bottom feeders. Now those three fro Kaz's example will file for unemployment, and guess where that money comes from?

So Kaz may not only get to pay his new employees, but also get's to support the deadbeats he fired.

Now knowing Kaz, he has a paper trail of write-ups for each to demonstrate that he gave them every opportunity to improve their work performance, but even that isn't 100% safe.

Another unintended consequence is that now everyone is that much closer to being "minimum wage."

So people who were happy making $7.50 an hour now see themselves making just $0.25 more than minimum wage. Now with this job market being as bad as it is; they probably won't quit, but morale will be real poor.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Another unintended consequence is that now everyone is that much closer to being "minimum wage."

So people who were happy making $7.50 an hour now see themselves making just $0.25 more than minimum wage. Now with this job market being as bad as it is; they probably won't quit, but morale will be real poor.

This is so true. I gave my best non-management employees small raises for exactly this reason. On the other hand I only replaced 2/3 and I cut back on the hours of the middle performers to fund it. So, once again it demonstrates that liberalism simply does not achieve it's objective. Liberals set out to help low end workers. What's the reality?

- High end workers - get a raise and no cut in hours, we won't risk losing them.

- Middle workers - small raise, but a cut in hours to make up for that and the high end worker raises reducing their net pay. I'm willing to risk losing them.

- Low end workers - fired

As always, Liberals set out to help the low end workers. Liberals hurt the low end workers and help the high end workers.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I hope you're open-minded enough to realize that there are unscrupulous people out there and there WILL be the strong taking advantage of the weak. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen, but I feel it would be a lot worse without ANY government oversight. To deny it's a plausible alternative is naive.

I totally agree there are many unscrupulous people out there, it affects us all. But you don't get from the realization of that fact to the minimum wage on logic, only emotion. Logic leads to all the examples I'm pointing out. The strong (scrupulous or unscrupulous) are business people who plan and adjust as I did.

The best workers are the ones who always do the best and the worst workers the least. When you remove choice and profitability of workers and companies, you are creating economic inefficiencies. Excrement rolls downhill. The business inefficiencies in every scenario end up harming the lowest end workers you wanted to help. That causes high unemployment, reduced hours, limited choices and few development opportunities for the low end workers you tried to "help." Gee, thanks.

The best solution for the low end workers is economic efficiency. Any inefficiency will ultimately harm them because their inability or unwillingness to invest in themselves and work to develop their skills is exactly why they are low end workers in the first place. This country is so full of opportunity you really have to be a totally green teenager or just not care to not be worth $7.25 an hour.

And as for some people being weak; it's true. Is it not in our best interest to take care of fellow man? I'm not talking about the welfare collecting, scamming, stealing, illegal types, but people who just don't know any better. Or the people that fall under the unscrupulous employer.

Well, as an owner of multiple businesses, I want to help those who will help themselves by working hard and developing their skills. One person I am helping is a lady who went through an ugly divorce and has two kids and is in a horrible situation. She's also very sharp and a natural marketer. I've moved her into a completely different role and am mentoring her and she's not only developing her skills, but she's loving what she's doing and it could change her entire life. She's very creative and making the most of the opportunity. She could also start making a whole pile of cash as her ideas and drive start bringing in more customers.

What is not realistic is workplace charity. Giving lazy workers who show up and don't do anything welfare drives up my costs, reduces morale and the incentive of quality workers to work. They talk and distract people and why should someone work when someone else doesn't have to?

The answer, is accountable, privately funded charities. Not workplace charity. Can any liberal business owner out there argue that this isn't true? You can keep and overpay productivity challenged workers what they just aren't worth and not jeopardize your whole business?