Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The damage will take a while to be apparent.

Also, the wage isn't $15 yet so the impact isn't as severe as an overnight pay raise would have been.

What people fail to understand that is that minimum wage labor costs constitutes 100% of a businesses expenses.

wat?

Second.

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:


"Worth" is, of course, highly also subjective. There was an idea, from way back in the early days of economics, that wages for a job will move to it's natural marginal value, that it's value can be determined naturally by economic forces. That idea is about three or four generations dead by now, as we've learned that's a nice theory and it helps explain very broad concepts, but in terms of any specifics it's absolutely dwarfed by relative bargaining power and cultural values. Remove the minimum wage and you add the potential for exploitation in to that, and then there's real trouble.

I mean, people are already declining to take jobs they believe are 'beneath' them. We see it all the time. I completely agree that "worth" is subjective, and on two fronts:

1. How much does a business decide a particular job is "worth."
2. Are there individuals willing to accept that job at that "worth."

HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

A business is going to pay as little as possible for the job they need done. People that need employment are going to weigh whether what said business is offering is worth their time. No one, in 2015 America, is going to work for pennies a day. As such, businesses cannot pay pennies a day, because there would be no demand for a job that paid pennies day. From there, businesses will continue to raise that wage until someone is willing to take that job. At that point is the correct wage for said job. It doesn't need a minimum wage to artificially drive it.

I've never been in the workforce without a minimum wage. I can tell you though, higher minimum wage is BETTER for everyone. Those who end up making minimum wage end up spending their entire paycheck anyways whether its 10$ or 15$ an hour pay rate. I't comes right back to businesses. A dude that used to snuff at 5 dollar coffee might try or start frequenting Starbucks because hes got some bills in his pocket. Same can be said about everything. People with money are more likely to spend it. It's better for everyone. Eventually everyone wages go up as a result because businesses are selling more product. WIN WIN really.

Lance845 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The damage will take a while to be apparent.

Also, the wage isn't $15 yet so the impact isn't as severe as an overnight pay raise would have been.

What people fail to understand that is that minimum wage labor costs constitutes 100% of a businesses expenses.

wat?

Second.

He's being sarcastic as feth.

There is also a problem in removing minimum wage protections in that it has not been unknown for companies to fix the price of goods and wages between themselves in order to keep more money in the pot for shareholders and management...

 Xenomancers wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Im sure at some point someone will drag up the FDR quote where he fairly explicitly states what his intention in a "minimum wage" is, (and it's supposed to be a living wage), however I somewhat agree with you in saying that High Schoolers, and those living in a situation where they are no supporting themselves don't really "need" a living wage.

If this was a real concern, you could easily introduce reduced minimum wages for people under 18, ie up to 16 the minimum is $8 an hour, 16-17 the minimum is $10 an hour, 17-18 the minimum is $12 an hour, and then once you're 18 it goes up to $15. You can even bring in allowances for college students, or industry specific lower minimums, so industries that employ college kids and others that don't need a living wage can pay less.

None of that happens, or is even suggested by conservatives who so like to talk about what the minimum wage is meant to be for.

The answer to this is simple - they think they "deserve" to make more than other people. As if wages are determined by how much something is deserved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point I was trying to make about automation is that debates about minimum wage are eventually going to turn into debates about what to do with the 50% of unemployable population. The only reasonable and logical thing to do at that point is to start giving "living wages" away to everyone. Got a better idea? suggest it! We can't all be advanced robot designers and programmers - which will eventually be the only jobs left for human beings.

In that situation you couldn't call it a living "wage" since they wouldn't be working. It would be an existence subsidy or danegeld to allieve resentment/anger.

No it's the wage you get for "living." LOL I know what you are saying but you also know what I'm saying. We can call it an existence subsidy.

I understood what you were saying. Personally, I think making them do something even if it's make work would be better than simply collecting a check for nothing.

 Easy E wrote:


Yes, this would never happen!

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal

Woops. It is even in America. Imagine if we went to the third-world!

His wages have risen and fallen based on "time studies," the method nonprofits use to calculate the salaries of Section 14 (c) workers. Staff members use a stopwatch to determine how long it takes a disabled worker to complete a task. That time is compared with how long it would take a person without a disability to do the same task. The nonprofit then uses a formula to calculate a salary, which may be equal to or less than minimum wage. The tests are repeated every six months.

I realize many people are opposed to a meritocracy.

I am not one of them.

I will also never understand how people continually associate what a CEO gets paid to what they think they should get paid.

 cincydooley wrote:
I will also never understand how people continually associate what a CEO gets paid to what they think they should get paid.

Some CEOs get paid way to much, particularly the ones who exhibit pretty horrible leadership, like sending executives to luxury retreats after taking a government bailout, or taking a raise (or not taking a pay cut) while laying off a ton of employees.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


Yes, this would never happen!

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal

Woops. It is even in America. Imagine if we went to the third-world!

His wages have risen and fallen based on "time studies," the method nonprofits use to calculate the salaries of Section 14 (c) workers. Staff members use a stopwatch to determine how long it takes a disabled worker to complete a task. That time is compared with how long it would take a person without a disability to do the same task. The nonprofit then uses a formula to calculate a salary, which may be equal to or less than minimum wage. The tests are repeated every six months.

I realize many people are opposed to a meritocracy.

I am not one of them.

I will also never understand how people continually associate what a CEO gets paid to what they think they should get paid.

Meritocracy? What is/has merit?

 Hordini wrote:
Some CEOs get paid way to much, particularly the ones who exhibit pretty horrible leadership, like sending executives to luxury retreats after taking a government bailout, or taking a raise (or not taking a pay cut) while laying off a ton of employees.

It has longed seemed to me there is a point where your actual job performance simply no longer seems to matter once you hit a certain level. Look at Carly Fiorina - she ran HP into the ground, and now touts her "business acumen" as a rationale for why she would be a successful politician. Mike Jeffries is another great example. He eventually got forced out, in all fairness, but look how many years he was wildly rewarded for doing a terrible job, year after year after year.

 djones520 wrote:
Finding a job that pays more then minimum wage is not that difficult. Even if you find one that does, growing beyond it won't take long if you exhibit something like drive.

It actually can be quite difficult and, generally speaking, that raise will still place the wage earner below the poverty line.

 djones520 wrote:

Managers don't like minimum wage workers. Because they aren't workers worth keeping. They'd rather pay more to an employee who is going to be worth 2 crappy employees. So don't be a crappy employee.

Not at a McJob where, at any given time, a manager can reach to the stack of applications on his desk like he's signalling the bullpen. I know this, because that's what I did with the low level workers (desk staff) when I managed a gym.

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Some CEOs get paid way to much, particularly the ones who exhibit pretty horrible leadership, like sending executives to luxury retreats after taking a government bailout, or taking a raise (or not taking a pay cut) while laying off a ton of employees.

It has longed seemed to me there is a point where your actual job performance simply no longer seems to matter once you hit a certain level. Look at Carly Fiorina - she ran HP into the ground, and now touts her "business acumen" as a rationale for why she would be a successful politician. Mike Jeffries is another great example. He eventually got forced out, in all fairness, but look how many years he was wildly rewarded for doing a terrible job, year after year after year.

They exist in a world where even completely screwing up their job still has a failure state of them getting more money than I can expect to make in my lifetime as part of their firing process.

One of the stupider things about scaling pay to age, is that in places where it exists you have companies fire employees to replace them with appropriately aged youngsters once they get too old. Why pay fractionally more for someone who knows what they're doing when you can save money on paper?

There's also that you're giving away free economic strength, because aside from the ones who will do smart things with their money like put it away for school, teens are one of the biggest luxury good buyers out there. Their disposable income goes right back into the local economy, which helps everyone.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


Yes, this would never happen!

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal

Woops. It is even in America. Imagine if we went to the third-world!

His wages have risen and fallen based on "time studies," the method nonprofits use to calculate the salaries of Section 14 (c) workers. Staff members use a stopwatch to determine how long it takes a disabled worker to complete a task. That time is compared with how long it would take a person without a disability to do the same task. The nonprofit then uses a formula to calculate a salary, which may be equal to or less than minimum wage. The tests are repeated every six months.

I realize many people are opposed to a meritocracy.

I am not one of them.

I will also never understand how people continually associate what a CEO gets paid to what they think they should get paid.

Sorry, meritocracy isn't the practice of letting private actors do whatever they want and hope that they play nice, I believe what you're looking for is "anarcho-capitalism".

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Finding a job that pays more then minimum wage is not that difficult. Even if you find one that does, growing beyond it won't take long if you exhibit something like drive.

It actually can be quite difficult and, generally speaking, that raise will still place the wage earner below the poverty line.

 djones520 wrote:

Managers don't like minimum wage workers. Because they aren't workers worth keeping. They'd rather pay more to an employee who is going to be worth 2 crappy employees. So don't be a crappy employee.

Not at a McJob where, at any given time, a manager can reach to the stack of applications on his desk like he's signalling the bullpen. I know this, because that's what I did with the low level workers (desk staff) when I managed a gym.

What were the costs involved with training new workers at your gym?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


Yes, this would never happen!

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/25/19062348-disabled-workers-paid-just-pennies-an-hour-and-its-legal

Woops. It is even in America. Imagine if we went to the third-world!

His wages have risen and fallen based on "time studies," the method nonprofits use to calculate the salaries of Section 14 (c) workers. Staff members use a stopwatch to determine how long it takes a disabled worker to complete a task. That time is compared with how long it would take a person without a disability to do the same task. The nonprofit then uses a formula to calculate a salary, which may be equal to or less than minimum wage. The tests are repeated every six months.

I realize many people are opposed to a meritocracy.

I am not one of them.

I will also never understand how people continually associate what a CEO gets paid to what they think they should get paid.

Sorry, meritocracy isn't the practice of letting private actors do whatever they want and hope that they play nice, I believe what you're looking for is "anarcho-capitalism".

No, he got it right with meritocracy. The wage you earn is based upon your contribution in the workplace and the value you add to the company/employer.

That is a far cry from meeting the definition of anarcho-capitalism.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:


"Worth" is, of course, highly also subjective. There was an idea, from way back in the early days of economics, that wages for a job will move to it's natural marginal value, that it's value can be determined naturally by economic forces. That idea is about three or four generations dead by now, as we've learned that's a nice theory and it helps explain very broad concepts, but in terms of any specifics it's absolutely dwarfed by relative bargaining power and cultural values. Remove the minimum wage and you add the potential for exploitation in to that, and then there's real trouble.

I mean, people are already declining to take jobs they believe are 'beneath' them. We see it all the time. I completely agree that "worth" is subjective, and on two fronts:

1. How much does a business decide a particular job is "worth."
2. Are there individuals willing to accept that job at that "worth."

HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

A business is going to pay as little as possible for the job they need done. People that need employment are going to weigh whether what said business is offering is worth their time. No one, in 2015 America, is going to work for pennies a day. As such, businesses cannot pay pennies a day, because there would be no demand for a job that paid pennies day. From there, businesses will continue to raise that wage until someone is willing to take that job. At that point is the correct wage for said job. It doesn't need a minimum wage to artificially drive it.

I've never been in the workforce without a minimum wage. I can tell you though, higher minimum wage is BETTER for everyone. Those who end up making minimum wage end up spending their entire paycheck anyways whether its 10$ or 15$ an hour pay rate. I't comes right back to businesses. A dude that used to snuff at 5 dollar coffee might try or start frequenting Starbucks because hes got some bills in his pocket. Same can be said about everything. People with money are more likely to spend it. It's better for everyone. Eventually everyone wages go up as a result because businesses are selling more product. WIN WIN really.

This, a more powerful lower wage creates more spending in the economy, yeah i get that it is offset by inflation,lower class/lower middle class having a slight raising of pay adds far more to an econmy than tax breaks to the rich. the profusion of GST proves this.

Relapse wrote:

What were the costs involved with training new workers at your gym?

There really weren't any, because I wouldn't hire anyone who lacked gym etiquette; as there were plenty of people in the metaphorical bullpen that possessed it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Some CEOs get paid way to much, particularly the ones who exhibit pretty horrible leadership, like sending executives to luxury retreats after taking a government bailout, or taking a raise (or not taking a pay cut) while laying off a ton of employees.

It has longed seemed to me there is a point where your actual job performance simply no longer seems to matter once you hit a certain level. Look at Carly Fiorina - she ran HP into the ground, and now touts her "business acumen" as a rationale for why she would be a successful politician. Mike Jeffries is another great example. He eventually got forced out, in all fairness, but look how many years he was wildly rewarded for doing a terrible job, year after year after year.

Fair points.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

What were the costs involved with training new workers at your gym?

There really weren't any, because I wouldn't hire anyone who lacked gym etiquette; as there were plenty of people in the metaphorical bullpen that possessed it.

The situation at your gym is an outlier, then. There are costs, both tangible and intangible with a business situation where there has to be constant training because of high turnover.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/11/16/44464/there-are-significant-business-costs-to-replacing-employees/

Relapse wrote:

The situation at your gym is an outlier, then.

It really wasn't.

Relapse wrote:

There are costs, both tangible and intangible with a business situation where there has to be constant training because of high turnover.

Sure, but most positions that involve high turnover don't involve a lot of training. Though I suppose, at that point, it is less a "cost" than an "expectation".

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

The situation at your gym is an outlier, then.

It really wasn't.

Relapse wrote:

There are costs, both tangible and intangible with a business situation where there has to be constant training because of high turnover.

Sure, but most positions that involve high turnover don't involve a lot of training. Though I suppose, at that point, it is less a "cost" than an "expectation".

As a job trainer, I see and hear about these costs all the time. A business deals with scrap in whatever form it takes, morale issues, knowledge walking out the door, slower process improvements, etc.

Relapse wrote:

As a job trainer, I see and hear about these costs all the time. A business deals with scrap in whatever form it takes, morale issues, knowledge walking out the door, slower process improvements, etc.

Indeed it does, but that doesn't mean said business cannot create a category of employees that is effectively disposable. Hell, it might even help the morale of categories that aren't.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

As a job trainer, I see and hear about these costs all the time. A business deals with scrap in whatever form it takes, morale issues, knowledge walking out the door, slower process improvements, etc.

Indeed it does, but that doesn't mean said business cannot create a category of employees that is effectively disposable. Hell, it might even help the morale of categories that aren't.

Very true. Many businesses keep a pool of temporary employees during a crunch for less skilled positions or they are specially trained to do just a few of the easier jobs, and the cost of their training is figured into the budget. Most businesses that have a revolving door involving full time employees or those trying to save money by relying on having the bulk of their processes manned by temps are crippling themselves.

And yet companies keep doing it because it provides good looking savings on paper.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 sebster wrote:


"Worth" is, of course, highly also subjective. There was an idea, from way back in the early days of economics, that wages for a job will move to it's natural marginal value, that it's value can be determined naturally by economic forces. That idea is about three or four generations dead by now, as we've learned that's a nice theory and it helps explain very broad concepts, but in terms of any specifics it's absolutely dwarfed by relative bargaining power and cultural values. Remove the minimum wage and you add the potential for exploitation in to that, and then there's real trouble.

I mean, people are already declining to take jobs they believe are 'beneath' them. We see it all the time. I completely agree that "worth" is subjective, and on two fronts:

1. How much does a business decide a particular job is "worth."
2. Are there individuals willing to accept that job at that "worth."

HSM proposed that, without a minimum wage, people would be working for pennies a day. I think that's a ridiculous notion.

A business is going to pay as little as possible for the job they need done. People that need employment are going to weigh whether what said business is offering is worth their time. No one, in 2015 America, is going to work for pennies a day. As such, businesses cannot pay pennies a day, because there would be no demand for a job that paid pennies day. From there, businesses will continue to raise that wage until someone is willing to take that job. At that point is the correct wage for said job. It doesn't need a minimum wage to artificially drive it.

I've never been in the workforce without a minimum wage. I can tell you though, higher minimum wage is BETTER for everyone. Those who end up making minimum wage end up spending their entire paycheck anyways whether its 10$ or 15$ an hour pay rate. I't comes right back to businesses. A dude that used to snuff at 5 dollar coffee might try or start frequenting Starbucks because hes got some bills in his pocket. Same can be said about everything. People with money are more likely to spend it. It's better for everyone. Eventually everyone wages go up as a result because businesses are selling more product. WIN WIN really.

This, a more powerful lower wage creates more spending in the economy, yeah i get that it is offset by inflation,lower class/lower middle class having a slight raising of pay adds far more to an econmy than tax breaks to the rich. the profusion of GST proves this.

And really, the inflation number that goes with the raising of minimum wage is about 30% of the raise, so that means they're still coming out ahead.

Relapse wrote:

Very true. Many businesses keep a pool of temporary employees during a crunch for less skilled positions or they are specially trained to do just a few of the easier jobs, and the cost of their training is figured into the budget.

In those cases the cost of training is essentially zero, at least assuming the business did not pay for the special training; which they usually don't.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Very true. Many businesses keep a pool of temporary employees during a crunch for less skilled positions or they are specially trained to do just a few of the easier jobs, and the cost of their training is figured into the budget.

In those cases the cost of training is essentially zero, at least assuming the business did not pay for the special training; which they usually don't.

In one form or another,a business will always pay for training. Those that just throw people into the work will pay through errors on the new workers part that cause scrap, rework, customer good will, overtime caused by trying to make shipping dates, etc. The intangibles, such as customer good will lost, can cause bad word of mouth that turns away customers to competitors.
HR costs figure into it, since their time is taken up with bringing new people in. Advertising for new employees or fees payed to hiring agencies may also come into the picture.
Low morale and lack of loyalty in a revolving door company also lead to lower production rates or low quality product, or even sabatogued product or company equipment.

Relapse wrote:
A business deals with scrap in whatever form it takes, morale issues, knowledge walking out the door, slower process improvements, etc.

I'm unfamiliar with the phrase "scrap" in this context. Is it like shrink?

It's not shrinkage. It's product that does not meet specifications in some way and is disposed of, "scrapped". In the end, just about any business that thinks of it's workers as a disposable commodity will in turn be thought of by it's workers as disposable. It will suffer knowledge drain by excessive firings or people just walking out the door, sometimes at extremely inconvenient times.
One of the greatest wastes in the manufacturing or service worlds is to underestimate the value of human worth.

So it's a manufacturing phrase, then - not retail slang?

 Ouze wrote:
So it's a manufacturing phrase, then - not retail slang?

That's what I am most familiar with, but it could possibly be extended to sub par service that needs to be smoothed over or reworked in some way.
In the example Dogma gave about the gym just kicking people out the door and bringing someone else in, I would posit the service is nowhere near the quality it could be since people are being treated as interchangeable parts rather than valuable people who have experience and care enough to provide the best care possible to their job.
I have to wonder how many potential clients were lost to competition due to this attitude on the gym's part. If a business offers a unique service or has rock bottom prices they may get by on this model for a while, but are nowhere near what they could be.
One time stands out in my mind when I was working at a "disposable worker" plant, and after a fairly grueling day on a line I was managing, I was approached and told I was the only one that treated the line workers like humans. After I left the company I was called by the people I managed and asked to come back.

Relapse wrote:

In one form or another,a business will always pay for training.

Sure, if we assume the business is the only agent involved.

Relapse wrote:

Those that just throw people into the work will pay through errors on the new workers part that cause scrap, rework, customer good will, overtime caused by trying to make shipping dates, etc. The intangibles, such as customer good will lost, can cause bad word of mouth that turns away customers to competitors.

How many people do you think patronized McDonald's 2 because they once had poor service at McDonald's 1?

Relapse wrote:

HR costs figure into it, since their time is taken up with bringing new people in. Advertising for new employees or fees payed to hiring agencies may also come into the picture.

The cost of HR advertising for low level positions fell alongside the rise of Facebook.