Mimimum wage - the reality

[KazooSkinsFan]

Hey libs, I fired three people last week because of you. Good job. The reality is that the minimum wage is not a tide, it's a hurdle. Let's review the facts. Are you reading this herohamo? You asked what I want to do. I actually have written extensively about that, but just wanted to point out I'm doing it again here. Having a minimum wage is idiotic. Eliminate it.

The story.

Minimum wage is now $7.25 an hour. We had 14 employees. Roughly 1/3 are minimum wage. Three of them were low performers. We weren't giving them a lot of hours, but we weren't letting them go either until minimum went up on 7/24 by 70 cents. Just to pick a number for illustration, let's say that under minimum wage workers are worth $5.

Now reason this logically. You could only hire workers for $5 by mutual agreement. That means you would pay it, and they would work for it. So right there is the first idiocy in the minimum wage. Why would someone work for $5 if they had a better option? Why should they not be able to make that choice for themselves?

But no, government says you cannot buy an hour of a worker's time for under $7.25 an hour. Does that mean that $5 workers get $7.25? Let's consider toasters. Today you can buy all sorts of toasters. From convection ovens costing hundreds of dollars to two slots and a button for $10. Let's say the government wanted stores to be able to charge $30 for a $10 toaster, so it said toasters can't be sold for under $30. How many $10 toasters would be sold for $30?

None.

Two things would happen. Some people just wouldn't have the money or really want a toaster and not buy any toaster (i.e., fire the worker). Other people would decide the $10 did the job at $10 they wanted, but at $30 they still want a toaster. Are they going to buy the $10 toaster for $30? No, they are going to buy a $30 toaster.

Ding, ding, ding. We fired the ones who weren't worth the old wage and we advertised on Craig's List and after 100 resumes in 3 days I had to take down the ad.

So, what happens to $5 workers. Canned. Which is why low end workers and teenagers with no experience can't get jobs. People won't pay them $7.25 an hour, they aren't worth it and there are plenty of people who are.

This is frankly so obvious a consequence and supported by every empirical fact it's another perfect example of the REALITY of liberalism, and proof that liberals don't care. They have a bigger, socialist utopia we will all belong to. Choice? None. Liberalism is not an ideology, it is a religion. The only way both reason and all data can be ignored.

[VetSkinsFan]

If you have a minimum wage of $7.25, there is no legal example of a $5 worker, so how can you make this analogy. The worth of goods and services are on a slide scale with respect to a plethora of reasons, such as availability, economic reasons, and much more.

I don't believe that it's so easy to label labor so easily. There are people out there that aren't worth employing at any rate, let alone a going rate for a specific job, whether it be McDonalds or a CFO of a major MNC.

[Irn-Bru]

Many of the kids who used to get jobs at low wages (small tasks, but ones which helped teach them responsibility and other virtues) now sit idly at home during the summer playing video games, or worse. So there's another real moral component to this as well. You can't complain that "kids these days" lack such-and-such habits while shutting them out from the opportunity to learn them.

[VetSkinsFan]

Very good point, IB. I don't want to derail the thread...but I use that same point vs illegal immigration arguments, too. I worked some of those jobs that people say Americans won't take as a teen myself, and I'm not that old where there's more than a 1 gen gap...

[KazooSkinsFan]

I worked some of those jobs that people say Americans won't take as a teen myself

Yes, you're demonstrating well the reality of another stupid liberal argument. Here's how it goes.

- Illegals pick melons for $2 an hour

- Our virtual lack of immigration control provides a steady stream of illegals to pick melons for $2 an hour

- American's won't pick melons for $2 an hour

- AHA! The liberals have a talking point, illegals do jobs American's WON'T!!!!! Sure they will, but not for $2 an hour.

The stupidity is that it's compounded by liberals who are the ones demanding a minimum wage and not having any border controls so illegals can do the job for $2.

Now of course the liberals will read this and totally miss every point of their own double standard. I am actually OK with Mexicans picking melons for $2, I just want them checked at the border for criminal records and that they follow our immigration laws (like leaving unless they are ALLOWED to stay) and Americans to have the same rights as them. Not Americans and legal immigrants be denied jobs on a minimum wage while illegals are not.

[Deadskins]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

[Deadskins]

How you can't "support a family" on the minimum wage? To your point, teenagers should earn a wage to support a family? The by definition lowest skill, experience and reliable workers who earn MINIMUM wage need to earn a wage to support a family? Huh? In what possible way does that make sense?

It doesn't, but you are making the assumption that all minimum wage earners are teenagers, living at home off of their parent's income, and any money they make is gravy.

Edit: I'm not arguing for the minimum wage here, just countering your stupid posts for the sheer fun of it.

[Deadskins]

The stupidity is that it's compounded by liberals who are the ones demanding ... not having any border controls so illegals can do the job for $2.

I'm confused. Are you saying that fruit growers are liberals?

[KazooSkinsFan]

How you can't "support a family" on the minimum wage? To your point, teenagers should earn a wage to support a family? The by definition lowest skill, experience and reliable workers who earn MINIMUM wage need to earn a wage to support a family? Huh? In what possible way does that make sense?

It doesn't, but you are making the assumption that all minimum wage earners are teenagers

And yet actually I don't make that assumption. I used teenagers as an example

[KazooSkinsFan]

The stupidity is that it's compounded by liberals who are the ones demanding ... not having any border controls so illegals can do the job for $2.

I'm confused. Are you saying that fruit growers are liberals?

This is illogical even for you. Keep it up my friend! You're a hoot.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

Did you actually not read it or are you "pretending" to have not grasped the argument?

[Deadskins]

How you can't "support a family" on the minimum wage? To your point, teenagers should earn a wage to support a family? The by definition lowest skill, experience and reliable workers who earn MINIMUM wage need to earn a wage to support a family? Huh? In what possible way does that make sense?

It doesn't, but you are making the assumption that all minimum wage earners are teenagers

And yet actually I don't make that assumption. I used teenagers as an example

So your point is it should be the employer who decides who needs a higher wage to support a family?

Don't bother answering, I know what you will say. It was a joke question anyway, designed to make you think for a change.

[Deadskins]

The stupidity is that it's compounded by liberals who are the ones demanding ... not having any border controls so illegals can do the job for $2.

I'm confused. Are you saying that fruit growers are liberals?

This is illogical even for you. Keep it up my friend! You're a hoot.

I'm just following your $2 fruit picking illegal statement to it's logical conclusion. It must be the fruit growers who are demanding that illegals be allowed in to pick their fruit for such low wages. They are the ones who are benefiting from the cheap labor. So they must be the liberals you are ranting about.

[Deadskins]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

Did you actually not read it or are you "pretending" to have not grasped the argument?

I grasped that you claimed "the liberals" made you fire three people, who you said needed replacing anyway, and that you did in fact, replace with more competent workers. Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

[size=0]As I said before, I'm not arguing for the MW here, just providing counterpoint to your stupid diatribes.[/size]

[KazooSkinsFan]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

Did you actually not read it or are you "pretending" to have not grasped the argument?

I grasped that you claimed "the liberals" made you fire three people, who you said needed replacing anyway, and that you did in fact, replace with more competent workers. Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

[size=0]As I said before, I'm not arguing for the MW here, just providing counterpoint to your stupid diatribes.[/size]

Winston Churchill: "I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you"

I was willing to pay them less and they were willing to work for less. The politicians came in and said pay them more or fire them. I chose the logical choice, the latter. The politicians you voted for took their choice away. I sleep fine. Why wouldn't I? I did nothing illogical. The question is how do YOU sleep at night? The answer of course being fine, but only because you don't understand.

[Countertrey]

I once was able to employ 3 high school students through the summer. No longer.

[Fios]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

Did you actually not read it or are you "pretending" to have not grasped the argument?

I grasped that you claimed "the liberals" made you fire three people, who you said needed replacing anyway, and that you did in fact, replace with more competent workers. Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

[size=0]As I said before, I'm not arguing for the MW here, just providing counterpoint to your stupid diatribes.[/size]

Winston Churchill: "I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you"

I was willing to pay them less and they were willing to work for less. The politicians came in and said pay them more or fire them. I chose the logical choice, the latter. The politicians you voted for took their choice away. I sleep fine. Why wouldn't I? I did nothing illogical. The question is how do YOU sleep at night? The answer of course being fine, but only because you don't understand.

Kaz, the last part of that is awfully close to a personal attack, please keep in mind which forum you're in

[VetSkinsFan]

So, is the argument that you'd rather be able to pay them what you think they're worth? Isn't that a completely subjective ideal? Employees always think that they're worth more than what they're getting.

This also brings about the point of integrity. Not all employers have this trait. You could say that an employer that employs illegals has no integrity. They are knowingly employing an individual below known market rate; the cheapest labor regardless of legality of the action or person. Don't forget where mimumum wage oringally came from. Even though I support zero tolerance to illegal immigration, I still believe that these laborers deserve an honest wage for an honest day's pay...do you think $2/hr is an honest wage for ANY job? I don't.

YOU may have integrity enough to pay them a fair wage, but does every employer out there? I think not. At least the minimum wage at least sets a floor for this. Additionally, I don't think there's a person here that can argue that minimum wage has risen with the cost of inflation. Depending on your age, you can say that YOU got paid more than the minimum wage workers of today taking inflation in to account.

[Deadskins]

Let me get this straight:
You blame the "liberals" for forcing you to fire three unproductive workers (who were making the old minimum wage), then you proceeded to fill those same jobs with three "new and improved" workers at the new minimum wage? So, no net loss of jobs to the economy, and a benefit to your company in that you now have a more competent work force. You write off the salary as a business expense anyway.

Sounds to me like the "liberals" did you a favor.

[size=0]Ignore me, and rant on![/size]

Did you actually not read it or are you "pretending" to have not grasped the argument?

I grasped that you claimed "the liberals" made you fire three people, who you said needed replacing anyway, and that you did in fact, replace with more competent workers. Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

[size=0]As I said before, I'm not arguing for the MW here, just providing counterpoint to your stupid diatribes.[/size]

Winston Churchill: "I can explain this to you; I can't comprehend it for you"

I was willing to pay them less and they were willing to work for less. The politicians came in and said pay them more or fire them. I chose the logical choice, the latter. The politicians you voted for took their choice away. I sleep fine. Why wouldn't I? I did nothing illogical. The question is how do YOU sleep at night? The answer of course being fine, but only because you don't understand.

I understand perfectly. Didn't you say you hired three new employees at the new MW? So your beef is not so much with the cost of the labor, but with the labor itself. If you didn't balk at paying the higher wage to the new employees, then why do you feel that you had to fire the previous three? You would rather blame politicians for the choice you made. Your anger is obviously misplaced. And you now also think you know my voting record. More projection on your part.

[Irn-Bru]

I once was able to employ 3 high school students through the summer. No longer.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of stories like that, once I started poking around and doing research.

I also think about how much I learned (personal and professional) from my first job as a maintenance worker, and know that if the minimum wage was where it is today, I wouldn't have been hired. Not sure whether I would have gotten another job or just spent another month or two lying around the house. I feel for the kids who miss out on that life experience.

[Countertrey]

I once was able to employ 3 high school students through the summer. No longer.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of stories like that, once I started poking around and doing research.

I also think about how much I learned (personal and professional) from my first job as a maintenance worker, and know that if the minimum wage was where it is today, I wouldn't have been hired. Not sure whether I would have gotten another job or just spent another month or two lying around the house. I feel for the kids who miss out on that life experience.

It absolutely sucks. Unfortunately, we just couldn't justify it any longer.

[KazooSkinsFan]

So, is the argument that you'd rather be able to pay them what you think they're worth? Isn't that a completely subjective ideal? Employees always think that they're worth more than what they're getting

The question isn't what they are worth, it's what they can get. And it's who should decide. If I'm willing to pay them $5 an hour and they can get more they turn me down. If they can't they take it. What difference does it make what they "think" they are worth? The market tells them what they ARE worth. If they want more, they need to work harder and increase their skills. From me they got that chance and didn't, so I fired them. All three I warned I was going to fire because they weren't productive enough.

So the question, Vet, is if I think someone is worth $5 and am not (and was not) willing to pay more, and they can't get more from someone else and are willing to work for that. How do you want it to work? Do you want them to decide, or politicians? Do you really think they should sit at home jobless over working for $5? I was willing to pay the three something. But they were just not very motivated or productive and I could get far more productive workers for $7.25. How does it make sense to you they are sitting at home on a sofa now because GOVERNMENT said pay them $7.25 or fire them?

This also brings about the point of integrity. Not all employers have this trait. You could say that an employer that employs illegals has no integrity. They are knowingly employing an individual below known market rate; the cheapest labor regardless of legality of the action or person. Don't forget where mimumum wage oringally came from. Even though I support zero tolerance to illegal immigration, I still believe that these laborers deserve an honest wage for an honest day's pay...do you think $2/hr is an honest wage for ANY job? I don't.

I don't think I said what you said I said and I'm not sure what you're arguing for here exactly.

YOU may have integrity enough to pay them a fair wage, but does every employer out there? I think not. At least the minimum wage at least sets a floor for this. Additionally, I don't think there's a person here that can argue that minimum wage has risen with the cost of inflation. Depending on your age, you can say that YOU got paid more than the minimum wage workers of today taking inflation in to account.

I support free markets. I don't trust capitalists as people more then socialists. I trust that capitalism provides choice and requires employers to compete for employees and customers and socialism removes all choice. I started my career in DC and hated working for government and private contractors for government behave largely like government because there is no free market competition. So your question on employers to me is irrelevant. If an employer isn't fair or doesn't pay enough, the market will solve it. They can find someone who does. In socialism like we have now, they are sitting watching TV.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I understand perfectly. Didn't you say you hired three new employees at the new MW? So your beef is not so much with the cost of the labor, but with the labor itself

Did you read the toaster analogy? You can disagree with it, but you're asking a question I answered. Start by reading the answer and then let's take it from there instead of simply asking the answered question.

If you didn't balk at paying the higher wage to the new employees, then why do you feel that you had to fire the previous three?

Ditto. Answered. Start with the answer, don't ask again.

You would rather blame politicians for the choice you made. Your anger is obviously misplaced. And you now also think you know my voting record. More projection on your part.

I'm not angry. Liberals love non-liberals to be angry, don't they? Actually, if you go back and read the first post the point you're debating isn't my point and never was. My point was on the reality of socialism.

Let's look at winners and losers.

Me: Dumped tired, sorry, lazy, unmotivated employees I was sick of dealing with and already overpaying because they weren't bad people and at least showed up for work and went through the motions. I should have fired them already. When government gave them a big raise it forced my hand. (Winner)

Government/Politicians: The aforementioned go through the motion employees will now be more dependent on government growing government spending and the power of the politician puppet masters at the helm (Winner)

Liberals: Not caring about the reality of their policies, liberals are smugly aglow about their great generosity with capitalists money to pay artificially high wages to workers not worth it (by definition, the market), their great generosity in using capitalists money to pay welfare instead, and then point their long bony accusatory fingers as the capitalists who fire the workers because they aren't worth the new wage and probably weren't worth the old ones. (BIG Winners)

Workers: Not able to get jobs, they lose more motivation and increase government dependence making themselves even more unemployable. Teenagers can't get experience, people trying to turn their lives can't get a job. (Big Losers)

So my question and the whole point of this forum, Deadskins, is aren't the only losers the low end workers, the ones the liberals claim they are trying to help while they declare victory and pat themselves on their back for their great generosity? How can liberals be the biggest winners when the ones they set out to help were the real losers in the equation?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I once was able to employ 3 high school students through the summer. No longer.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of stories like that, once I started poking around and doing research.

I also think about how much I learned (personal and professional) from my first job as a maintenance worker, and know that if the minimum wage was where it is today, I wouldn't have been hired. Not sure whether I would have gotten another job or just spent another month or two lying around the house. I feel for the kids who miss out on that life experience.

Note: None of this disagrees with you. Just adding to it.

Statistically 2/3 of minimum wage workers are teenagers. One tenth of one percent of workers earn minimum wage now and earned minimum wage three years ago. So my first question would be, what percent of workers do you think are complete and utter losers who frankly don't really deserve any wage? I'm thinking a heck of a lot more then 1 tenth of one percent. So clearly the objective of the minimum wage is political.

If you thought of "improvement" in society, who do you think needs jobs the most? I agree you guys are arguing teenagers. But to be more specific, who needs a job more then teenagers in poor areas? Areas where teen unemployment is 50%. Why? No one will pay them minimum wage.

[Irn-Bru]

This points to the truth that the real minimum wage is actually zero dollars, no matter what the law says.