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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.

No, the varying rates of pay are driven pretty much entirely by the relative scarcity of different types of labour. Engineering and design training and talent is rarer, and so commands a higher wage than assembly talent.

No matter how clever the doctors in a hospital are, the hospital will do very badly if it isn't kept clean. But capable cleaners are a lot easier to come by than doctors, and so the cleaners get paid a lot less than the doctors.

but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs

Even weirder because a lot of people who live below the poverty line work 50-70 hours a week. Ignore that a consumer economy, being one that runs off consumption of goods, benefits from having more consumers and more ability to consume than it does from having richer millionaires.

I didn't only mean "college jobs". That's a bad wording on my part.

But a lot of vocational jobs and 2 year degree type jobs, all jobs with specialized training, tend to start around that $14-17 an hour range, right?

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.

No, the varying rates of pay are driven pretty much entirely by the relative scarcity of different types of labour. Engineering and design training and talent is rarer, and so commands a higher wage than assembly talent.

No matter how clever the doctors in a hospital are, the hospital will do very badly if it isn't kept clean. But capable cleaners are a lot easier to come by than doctors, and so the cleaners get paid a lot less than the doctors.

I agree.

I was responding to someone saying profits(rewards) should be distributed among the lower workers who supposedly made those profits exist.

I was showing that they are not responsible for the success of the company, they're largely just cogs in a machine who really could only contribute to its downfall and not its ultimate success.

Scarcity and grade of pay weren't relevant to that point.

 LordofHats wrote:

but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs

Even weirder because a lot of people who live below the poverty line work 50-70 hours a week. Ignore that a consumer economy, being one that runs off consumption of goods, benefits from having more consumers and more ability to consume than it does from having richer millionaires.

I'd be interested to see some statistics that link up those 50-70 hour a week folks with single income homes with children. I'd bet there's a correlation there.

Probably is, but its not just them. I live in a pretty cheap area. Cost of living in Kansas is low compared to Virginia, and I know single guys and girls my age with no kids who have to work 55 to 60 hours and have a roommate to get by.

My expenses are low so I get by on about 45 hours (and I only have those extra 5 because I couldn't get a second job without taking them) but I don't drink, smoke, game much anymore, or eat expensive foods*.

I've been living off ham egg and cheese bagels for weeks @_@ On the bright side, I'm losing weight fast

 easysauce wrote:
If a living wage is 12$/hr, go for it, but some jobs will still only generate 8$/hr worth of pay, and those jobs shouldnt dissapear just beacause the amount they are able to generate wont sustain the pay of the person working them.

More economic gibberish. You can't single out one job and figure out how much that job in isolation added in economic value.

A hospital with excellent doctors and clean operating areas will generate many hundreds of millions of dollars in total revenue in a year. If that same hospital has no cleaners at all, it will generate nothing. But of course, that doesn't mean that the cleaning staff is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. There is simply no way of valuing each individual input when they are all needed.

Instead, what you do is pay the least possible for each position, while still getting a good enough return. Cleaning is cheaper simply because of the supply of people able to be competent cleaners is very high. Doctors are expensive because relatively few people are skilled and talented enough to do the job.

At some point, basic market conditions will be such that the rate of pay determined by supply and demand will pay less than what's needed for a basic living. This doesn't mean they don't generate enough economic value for a decent living, it means the market can get away with paying less simply due to the relative supply and demand of that kind of labour.

 LordofHats wrote:
Probably is, but its not just them. I live in a pretty cheap area. Cost of living in Kansas is low compared to Virginia, and I know single guys and girls my age with no kids who have to work 55 to 60 hours and have a roommate to get by.

My expenses are low so I get by on about 45 hours (and I only have those extra 5 because I couldn't get a second job without taking them) but I don't drink, smoke, game much anymore, or eat expensive foods*.

I've been living off ham egg and cheese bagels for weeks @_@ On the bright side, I'm losing weight fast

I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.

If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
If a living wage is 12$/hr, go for it, but some jobs will still only generate 8$/hr worth of pay, and those jobs shouldnt dissapear just beacause the amount they are able to generate wont sustain the pay of the person working them.

More economic gibberish. You can't single out one job and figure out how much that job in isolation added in economic value.

No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.

That you fail to grasp such a simple concept, that one must generate more then one earns in order to have a sustainable job, is a bit sad.

You may as well claim that someone can grow one ton of food, and consume two tons, perpetually every year.

Your claim that someone generating 8 $ an hour can earn 12$ an hour sustainably is what is gibberish.

Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.

 easysauce wrote:
The fundamental human rights do not include "show up and get a house, clothes, food, tv, a car, the net, ect ect ect"

If the arguement was for actual needs like "food, water, shelter" then our minimum wage is already a living wage.

Which is a really great argument as long as we consider that other people's lives should be helped up to but only as far as the absolute minimum needed to remove our guilt. Which is, simply put, a totally fethed way of looking at the world.

Instead the only real question on this is how far we can push minimum wage up before the cost in jobs is too high relative to the increase in living standard.

 cincydooley wrote:


I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.

If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.

Probably some mix of student loans, car payments (I don't have any and that would probably send me over the edge of needing to work more, a lot more), continuing education, having a life*.

*I purposely choose not to have one. That way I'm immortal!




I'm lucky. I went to school on the VA's dime which left me with no debt coming out of school and my car was bought in full between me and my parents a few years ago.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm going to direct this question at some of you that are smarter than me:

Does increasing the minimum wage to, say, $15 devalue other jobs that require higher education?

Maybe a little bit. Thing is, people chase higher education for all sorts of reasons, only one of which is pay (job as identity, more interesting work, career growth over time etc). Pay is only one factor, and where it is the person with a higher education should expect to earn a hell of a lot more than $15 (and if he doesn't, he should have a reasonable expectation that his pay will increase considerably in the next few years as he gains experience, or he should be very active in the job market).

The greater impact would likely be, as hotsauceman say, on semi-skilled jobs. But then you'd expect those jobs to continue to pay a modest premium above minimum wage just to draw people to them (otherwise people wouldn't take the responsibility/harder work). So a job paying $3 over the old minimum would probably maintain most of that, and continue to pay something like $3 over the new minimum.

The major impact of such a high minimum wage though, will be on the number of jobs that are lost. Jobs that would have existed at $10 or $11 an hour will no longer exist at $15 an hour. The CBO did a recent study on the issue that whembly posted on this forum, and that found, iirc, that just under $10 an hour would have a fairly negligible impact on jobs, while iirc $12 an hour would lead to a million odd lost jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, they actually will fire staff. They'll require the employees who remain to work harder, possibly for additional pay. They may even take a drop in efficiency. Instead of having 1 server wait on 10 tables an hour he'll settle for 6 if that server is also busing dishes and sweeping the floor and taking out the trash.

Yeah, that argument gets mentioned a lot. It is true on the margins (that is some % of businesses will reduce staff by some %) for any increase in wages, and that's true whether it's wages driven up by economic conditions or government intervention. But to argue it as an absolute that will mean the overall impact of a raise in minimum wage will always be negative is what I'm responding to here.

 easysauce wrote:

Nice straw manning, making up total BS, and putting words in my mouth... there being a state definition of how much a living wage actually is, is not regulating all wages, not by a long shot. Its just putting a # to what constitutes a living wage, it forces no one to actually pay that.

You never indicated that the concept of a "living wage" would be limited to a state definition, something you should have done if you were differentiating a living wage from a minimum wage; given that minimum wage laws carry legal force.

 easysauce wrote:

You saying I just want to punish the poor is just a farce at best, and an insult at worst.

You straight up say that the minimum wage should be below the living wage and you're surprised someone is arguing that you seem to want to punish the poor?

 easysauce wrote:

But do keep arguing on how we can afford to pay people 12$/hr for work that generates less then 12$/hr.... I do so love to see mental gymnastics

I never made such an argument.

 easysauce wrote:
No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.

Once again, very few jobs have an identifiable direct economic benefit to the company. Instead, most jobs are part of an overall effort to produce one collective result. Indeed, that's why we have companies - to produce an overall collective result from thousands and possibly millions of inputs.

Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.

Actually, that'd be management accounting. And it's a process with a great deal of limitations, and very little purpose outside of very specific industries and processes.

ie if you did it for the lecturing staff teaching small population classes then you'd be doing exactly what I was doing this time yesterday. But if you tried to do it for program managers, unit directors, front reception staff, finance, student officers, exec or well, about 50% of the staff of the organisation you'd be laughed at for being an idiot.

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.

It really isn't. Even if every single kid had a microchip inserted in their head that made them make all the right choices through their teenage lives... well there simply won't be skilled jobs for them all when they qualify with perfect scores from their tertiary institution of choice.

The real issue is this weird idea that's crept in to society that anyone who isn't earning a high flying income is a total feth up that we should all shun. 50 years ago, did we refer to the people that served us dinner as losers who didn't deserve a living wage? It used to be that such scorn was reserved for people who didn't work at all, but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs, and that has flowed through to lots of people insisting that such people don't deserve at least a modest standard of living.

True.

My point was not everyone on minimum wage is a loser who made poor choices. I proposed it as a question like that to try and actually get people to think about the problem so they might lead themselves to an answer instead of just living in their own echo chamber.

However, you nailed it. Our economy has a structural problem with job creation that is only going to get worse due to automation and globalization. If you couple that with a moral assumption that people who work less skilled jobs are losers and idiots you can see the landscape for a very, very challenging future ahead.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.

Then that's a stupid point.

I mean, if we made welfare a billion dollars a second, and taxes 100% of everything earned, then everyone would just live on welfare but be taxed all of it and the whole system would collapse overnight. But to conclude that because an extreme increase would be a disaster then we must not consider a more moderate increase is very stupid.
.

Just because you don't like math doesn't make it stupid. If you can't win the argument go for insults. EDIT: And why the hostility here? This is a fundamental economic argument that goes on daily, globally. No reason for the hostility..DORK!

Its all about the numbers. Cry blah blah all you want, but the numbers are the only thing that matters.
Less people will be employed. If you think thats ok, cool, but its a value judgement. You're ok with more unemployed people.

I'm not necessarily against a minimum wage, but substantial jumps WILL lead to unemployment. Its math. And the argument that everyone is working for megacorp is disingenuous:

1. If so, Megacorp will re-adjust its technology/methodology to the new cost structure. You will pay more or there will be fewer employees.
2. If not, all the little businesses will have to absorb that cost, making them more exposed to the Walmarts of the world.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:


I guess my question is what are the expenses of these people that have to work 50-70 hours a week.

If I was single and didn't have student loans, I could live pretty cheaply.

Probably some mix of student loans, car payments (I don't have any and that would probably send me over the edge of needing to work more, a lot more), continuing education, having a life*.


I'm lucky. I went to school on the VA's dime which left me with no debt coming out of school and my car was bought in full between me and my parents a few years ago.

Im getting 9000$ a semester from my college for all my expenses.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm not necessarily against a minimum wage, but substantial jumps WILL lead to unemployment. Its math.

A minimum wage, or a minimum wage increase?

Both.

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:
No, despite your baseless assertion, the idea that a job must generate more income then it pays its employee is a simple economic principal, and it is reality.

Once again, very few jobs have an identifiable direct economic benefit to the company. Instead, most jobs are part of an overall effort to produce one collective result. Indeed, that's why we have companies - to produce an overall collective result from thousands and possibly millions of inputs.

Its basic economics to be able to determine the amount of $ an employee generates on average per hour, and assign them a rate of pay proportional to it.

Actually, that'd be management accounting. And it's a process with a great deal of limitations, and very little purpose outside of very specific industries and processes.

ie if you did it for the lecturing staff teaching small population classes then you'd be doing exactly what I was doing this time yesterday. But if you tried to do it for program managers, unit directors, front reception staff, finance, student officers, exec or well, about 50% of the staff of the organisation you'd be laughed at for being an idiot.

So easysauce, since you are an astute businessman:

If you had the choice of making $200,000 or $300,000, would you ever choose to make $0?

 easysauce wrote:

I have owned franchises, so has my GF, so have countless other peopl, and thats exactly what happens: You apply a formula for each worker, and using projected or recorded figures you determine how much you pay your janitor, cashier, pharmacists, managers and so on and so forth.

What projected, or recorded, figures would you use to determine the pay of a janitor? Or a cashier? Or a pharmacist? Or a manager?

I also find it interesting that you said you owned franchises, a statement which implies that you no longer do. Do you presently own a franchise, or a business?

You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.

 easysauce wrote:

Now instead of 3 people making 24$/hr between them, we have two people making 24/hr between them, and one person who now is out of job, either homeless or on government programs now, and an employer who has 2 people instead of three, and two employees who now have to make up the extra work.

Chances are that the 3 people making 8 USD per hour were already on government assistance. As such, the worst case scenario is that state assistance would be concentrated on a single, jobless person as opposed to 3 employed people; diminishing administrative costs.

 whembly wrote:
You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.

Agreed, but that isn't formulaic.

 whembly wrote:
You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.

So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.

So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?

<.<

>.>

Yes?

 easysauce wrote:

You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr, but that determining how much an employee generates is impossible, which is just a flat out lie or total ignorance on your part.

Back in my early college days I was the "maintenance person" at the McDonalds I worked at. I didn't have to cook food anymore, instead each day I mopped the entire store, cleaned baseboards, toilets, brick sidewalks, all the windows, helped off-load the trucks, did inventory, and other crap like that.

How much money did I make the store?

 easysauce wrote:

You keep claiming that not only can people make 12$/hr for a job that generates 8$/hr

No he isn't. He's saying you can't tell whether the job generates $8/hr in the first place due to the synergistic effects of different types of employees. The sum is greater than the parts.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You'd pay at least the industry's going rate for that job.

So you don't pay him $8 because he only somehow makes your company $6, you pay him $8 because supply and demand across the entire industry determines that you need to pay him $8 or he won't work for you?

Generally correct. However if the expense of the job is greater than the efficiency or value added you hire someone else and pay them $6 under the table.

Hiring someone at 12$ an hour for a job that makes 12$ an hour is LOSING money because of overhead costs and margins.

And not every position directly generates profit via banging out widgets or serving customers. Those profit-generating positions have to generate overhead to handle indirect costs which sometimes include other employees.

It is all a lot more complicated than you generated 12$, here is 12$!