Should minimum wage be increased?

[jpgrdnr]

This already happens. Speaking of Wal Mart, I know someone who does shipping/ receiving at one of their warehouses and they definitely use productivity quotas there.

yeah, but for minimum wage or for $7/hr? I mean I did the same thing doing shipping in a warehouse as temp for $10/hr, years ago mostly because I didn't really care at all. It'd be really hard to justify working your ass off as a cleaner for $6/hr or anything really, today. Or tolerate any kind of management BS...like today if you're paid more you have a vested interest in keeping that job, so some companies like to dick you around, "I need you to come in on Saturday..." So you play yes man and do exactly that. As a company you don't want high turn around...and if you have a $6/hr employee, if they don't like something, they'll leave...

So what would be my incentive then to save money by renting a room instead of an apartment?

Ideally a housing credit should be proportional to your living accomodations. It would still work out that renting a room is a cheaper option. Hell as it stands now the maximum credit in some states is $2200 !!! :O

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Ideally a housing credit should be proportional to your living accomodations. It would still work out that renting a room is a cheaper option. Hell as it stands now the maximum credit in some states is $2200 !!! :O

Even if it's proportional to living accommodations, it still influences the decision by effectively subsidizing larger residences. Say it's 50% of rent - so an apartment is (say) $700 before, and $350 afterwards, while a room is $200 before and $100 afterwards. Instead of the difference between a room and an apartment being $500, it's only $250.

 

[P A]

There is an absurdity inherent to the notion of a minimum wage that I have yet to wrap my head around. A handful of technocrats/oligarchs suggest squeezing already-employed low-wage laborers out their current jobs and into an increasingly competitive, highly diluted unskilled labor market by placing a blanket price floor on said labor - and all this in an economy that is becoming ever-more efficiently automated and outsourced to service the bottom lines of the very corporations we're trying to hold accountable with this wage legislation in the first place. What's next, prevent/discourage large employers from dumping their current labor and outsourcing and/or automating it the minute their at-home labor costs exceed the cost of a foreign or mechanized alternative? I'm sure that there does indeed exist a large quantity of jobs that simply cannot be relegated to foreign wage slaves or machines, but by what proportion? Where I live, >1/3 of the grocery checkout lines are overseen by a single (minimum-wage!) employee. In the medical supply warehouse/distribution center in which I used to work, the pickmod was responsible for nearly as much daily output as every manual picker combined; and as I understood it from the veterans there, its reach was continually expanding as more manual workers were displaced.

I guess I'm just not sure what long-term economic (as opposed to sociopolitical) rationale lies behind this push to artificially increase the price of labor. Regardless of how much you force it to pay its disposable employees (within the bounds of reason), Wal-Mart will still be free to do with its money and its labor whatever it damn well pleases - and if that involves firing all of its greeters and half of its cashiers and setting up a few new automated checkout lines to fill the vacuum, then so much the better for Wal-Mart.

Also, I think both of these cartoons are equally infuriating, but I'll post them anyway for shits and giggles.

 

[paranoid android]

yeah, but for minimum wage or for $7/hr? I mean I did the same thing doing shipping in a warehouse as temp for $10/hr, years ago mostly because I didn't really care at all. It'd be really hard to justify working your ass off as a cleaner for $6/hr or anything really, today. Or tolerate any kind of management BS...like today if you're paid more you have a vested interest in keeping that job, so some companies like to dick you around, "I need you to come in on Saturday..." So you play yes man and do exactly that. As a company you don't want high turn around...and if you have a $6/hr employee, if they don't like something, they'll leave...

Well i worked for about $12 a hour (then only maybe $2 higher then minimum wage) for a courier company that expected X amount of packages moved for X amount of time that you where supposed to be working. Of course it didn't work no matter how much of abunch of slave drivers they acted like and nobody is going to sweat their balls off sorting 900 packages in 5 hours for $12 a hour. Not to mention since we where getting paid by the hour and not the package and the longer it took to sort the packages the more time we got there was not exactly any incentive there to work like a fucking dog. The managers couldn't run a whore house let alone a courier company and acted like total cunts. They had the highest turnover rate of any company i have seen before or since and even though i stayed there for a little less then a year i think there where maybe only 6 other guys who where there longer then me.

Minimum wages should be increased especially in the US which makes Canada look good by comparison and that is saying alot. Also for companies that are based in Canada or America there should be heavy penalties for outsourcing jobs to places that pay even worse slave wages then here at home. Outsourcing and lowering wages to keep up with the likes of China is not going to work and does nothing but make the CEO's richer while the workers get poorer. Walmart are easily the worst example of this and i would not be unhappy if they simply packed up and left Canada altogether which is what they threatened to do if they managed to unionize workers in Quebec.

It's not hard to know that the corporations are in league with the government here. The government promotes a certain skilled trade that the companies want and gives incentives to do a certain skilled trade which ends up creating a glut of workers so there are way more workers then there are jobs to fill. This keeps the wages nice and low and in the event of a strike you will have alot of scabs to choose from. It's very short sighted on the part of the provincial government though as people just move out west to make $30 something a hour at something they would only make $15 at here.

 

[P A]

Minimum wages should be increased especially in the US which makes Canada look good by comparison and that is saying alot.

Okay, but what do you suggest be done when businesses respond to such legislation by simply firing employees en masse (i.e., downsizing to keep production costs as low as feasible)? Anytime you drive up the cost of labor, you'll be hurting producers' bottom line in such a way that some collateral damage is inevitable. Don't misunderstand me: I detest the fact that most people must live on so fucking little, but making the situation better by introducing artificial price floors is much easier said than done.

The government promotes a certain skilled trade that the companies want and gives incentives to do a certain skilled trade which ends up creating a glut of workers so there are way more workers then there are jobs to fill. This keeps the wages nice and low and in the event of a strike you will have alot of scabs to choose from.

I was under the impression that those affected most by minimum wage legislation were unskilled workers, rather than those with specific skill sets (many of whom could indeed look for a job elsewhere*, and find one with greater ease than their unskilled counterparts, other things equal).

*As in, geographically elsewhere, as opposed to 'a competitor in the same area'-elsewhere, obviously.

 

[kaywholed]

Okay, but what do you suggest be done when businesses respond to such legislation by simply firing employees en masse (i.e., downsizing to keep production costs as low as feasible)? Anytime you drive up the cost of labor, you'll be hurting producers' bottom line in such a way that some collateral damage is inevitable. Don't misunderstand me: I detest the fact that most people must live on so fucking little, but making the situation better by introducing artificial price floors is much easier said than done.

If you raise minimum wage there is now economic law that dictates employers will fire employees en mass.

They can:

A) eat the difference out of their profit
B) increase margins/prices to pay for the increase in cost
C) motivate the employees to be more productive and thus make up (or increase) profit
D) attract other employees from the labour force who can be more productive

Lets not forget that corporations are sitting on piles of cash, and have continued to increase profits on the backs of their workers.

 

[Corazon]

Walmart and partners love low min-wage and welfare in general.
1. cheap labor
2. 80% of food stamps/EBT are used at walmart.

 

[L2R]

You get what you pay for. This goes for businesses as well as customers. Firing staff for a minimum wage increase is self defeating in two ways.
1-you lose the entire value their labour contributed to your goods or services
2-minimum wage earners spend more of their wage increases than middle or high income raises. So when minimum wages go up, your customer base and local economy expands.

 

[P A]

They can:

A) eat the difference out of their profit

Not going to happen, except perhaps in exceptional cases.

B) increase margins/prices to pay for the increase in cost

Thereby driving down consumer demand for their product(s). If I were hypothetical business owner, that would sound pretty shitty to me.

C) motivate the employees to be more productive and thus make up (or increase) profit

i.e., break their existing employee's backs and run them all into the ground before discarding them and acquiring fresh meat from the bloated market.

D) attract other employees from the labour force who can be more productive

Eh, I'm not sure what that means, precisely. I'm talking mostly about unskilled laborers, so...

Lets not forget that corporations are sitting on piles of cash, and have continued to increase profits on the backs of their workers.

Well yeah, some have done just that. But while some prosper through hideous exploitation, others are operating at a loss or are simply breaking even. Wal-Mart, obviously, is of the former persuasion.

You get what you pay for. This goes for businesses as well as customers. Firing staff for a minimum wage increase is self defeating in two ways.
1-you lose the entire value their labour contributed to your goods or services

Well, yes, but that's just the cost of doing business, as it were. Other things equal, if the cost of keeping a certain kind of employee (e.g., an unskilled laborer) increases, then on the average, we'll see hiring rates for that group proportionally decline while the number currently employed will dip in a similar fashion (due to layoffs, &c.). This effect will be especially pronounced in industries suffering significant losses and/or facing unfavorable economic conditions.

2-minimum wage earners spend more of their wage increases than middle or high income raises. So when minimum wages go up, your customer base and local economy expands.

This is an undoubtedly real benefit for society as a whole, but would have little influence upon the behavior of individual businesses seeking to maximize profit.

 

[kaywholed]

Not going to happen, except perhaps in exceptional cases.

i know, corps wanna have their cake and eat it too

Thereby driving down consumer demand for their product(s). If I were hypothetical business owner, that would sound pretty shitty to me.

mitigating by the fact that workers (consumers) have more money

i.e., break their existing employee's backs and run them all into the ground before discarding them and acquiring fresh meat from the bloated market.

go from working two poorly paid jobs to one ok paid job? min wage "noskill"(bullshit term) jobs are already high churn

Eh, I'm not sure what that means, precisely. I'm talking mostly about unskilled laborers, so...

not all unskilled labourers are the same. there is skill to retail sales, food service etc. shitty workers make more mistakes, and don't make the same amount of sales (two people saying do you want fries with that will have different upsell rates based upon their skill). if you pay more you can attract the better workers which makes more money for you.

Well yeah, some have done just that. But while some prosper through hideous exploitation, others are operating at a loss or are simply breaking even. Wal-Mart, obviously, is of the former persuasion.
Not all businesses have a right to profit, you have to earn it and it shouldn't be off the back of the proles who make the profit for the bourgeoisie.
If you can't profit with slave labour go out of business.

Fucking the little guy is stupid greed. Because their are lots of them, and when they get together like a giant mech to protest you are fucked mr capitalist.

 

[L2R]

^thats the trick, getting the poor masses organised. It costs time and money.

P A, I agree with what you're saying. It is the "nature of the beast". Businesses have been terrorising governments with the threat of outsourcing for years. It is terrorism by definition as it promises crippling sanctions onto innocent workers for the sake of business favouring laws (tax, industrial relations, health and safety, workers compensation, superannuation, etc). Governments have actively been "negotiating" with these terrorists.

 

[kaywholed]

^thats the trick, getting the poor masses organised. It costs time and money.

P A, I agree with what you're saying. It is the "nature of the beast". Businesses have been terrorising governments with the threat of outsourcing for years. It is terrorism by definition as it promises crippling sanctions onto innocent workers for the sake of business favouring laws (tax, industrial relations, health and safety, workers compensation, superannuation, etc). Governments have actively been "negotiating" with these terrorists.

history proves that there is a threshold for The People, and once that breaking point is reached, nothing, not swords, horses, guns, tanks, or sat drones will stop that 95% of the population that want heads on a stick.

America is a Fascist state. Lets not forget that post WWII German Science came to America and catapulted America to the skies, moon and fat fucking bank accounts. The collusion of business and government is complete with the laws being written by the corp lobbyists. Suck as much money out and hide it before the house falls down and hope you don't get hung in DC.

It's funny really. America has alot of guns, bombs and shit, and its falling apart, rotten from the inside. Think post Wall USSR was bad with letting arms go on the market... just wait till Captains with carriers and boomers float to their own tune, silos become their own states with the power to nuke anything on earth, people fucking fuck over N Dakota.

The middle east, africa, asia are all experiencing conflicts, as America is perceived as weak and Europe is a disaster. I can't wait to see who says "fuck you pay me first".

 

[P A]

Fucking the little guy is stupid greed.

I agree. I just wish people would talk about a more clearheaded solution than 'derp, rase mimimum for teh poor folk.'

i know, corps wanna have their cake and eat it too

When we limit ourselves to the social sphere, sure. But speaking economically, successful businesses just tend to make dispassionate decisions that are reflective of their raison d'être - viz., to maximize profit.

mitigating by the fact that workers (consumers) have more money

But no, because the number of consumers suddenly making more money due to a wage shift is often much smaller than the total customer base (not all of which consists of unskilled laborers, remember?). Alienating >70% (or whatever) of your customers is just bad business, period.

not all unskilled labourers are the same. there is skill to retail sales, food service etc. shitty workers make more mistakes, and don't make the same amount of sales (two people saying do you want fries with that will have different upsell rates based upon their skill). if you pay more you can attract the better workers which makes more money for you.

This is certainly true. By the term 'unskilled,' I (as well as everyone else, as far as I'm aware) refer to those with no college degrees, special licenses, or any other professional certification that would grant them entry into a specialized job market. This is a mass of individuals largely undifferentiated by any objective characteristics that would point them up as inherently superior or more qualified than any other candidate (once you take age, gender, disability and so forth out of the equation), with the possible exception of 'job experience.' While not all unskilled laborers are 'the same' in fact, they mostly appear so on paper; and as far as most employers are concerned they are near-identical and almost completely interchangeable and disposable. Hence the term.

go from working two poorly paid jobs to one ok paid job? min wage "noskill"(bullshit term) jobs are already high churn

I didn't realize that that was what you meant. Either way, a minimum wage boost sufficient to propel impoverished people out of their second jobs would be quite substantial, i.e. completely unrealistic.

Not all businesses have a right to profit, you have to earn it and it shouldn't be off the back of the proles who make the profit for the bourgeoisie.
If you can't profit with slave labour go out of business.

I mostly agree with this statement, and if you have any bright ideas as to how we should go about effecting the failure of such abusive structures, pray tell. It seems clear to me, though, that attempting to maximize wages by way of state intervention is not a particularly clever way to do it. As I see it, the state is part of the problem - not the solution - to society's more perverse inequities.

 

[Joeof1]

Minimum wage laws merely increases the likelihood of increasing unemployment.

 

[kaywholed]

if an essential service can't be provided at a profit while fucking over the people, then the government can run it.
if a corp fucks the country/people/planet, the corp licences is revoked and assets can be seized to pay for damages, and sold or run by the state.
if corps are sucking the life out of the country, fight back and take the money or the corp and work to make America the great country it ONCE was.

 

[kaywholed]

Minimum wage laws merely increases the likelihood of increasing unemployment.

The is a retarded statement.

Do you want to work for a dollar an hour?

Having a minimum wage that is livable increases the motivation to be employed.

 

[P A]

P A, I agree with what you're saying. It is the "nature of the beast". Businesses have been terrorising governments with the threat of outsourcing for years. It is terrorism by definition as it promises crippling sanctions onto innocent workers for the sake of business favouring laws (tax, industrial relations, health and safety, workers compensation, superannuation, etc). Governments have actively been "negotiating" with these terrorists.

Well, hey, of course they've been - they're predominately composed of people who are directly affiliated with (or even identical to, e.g. Dick Cheney) the owners of the mean of production.

Also, I really like your idea of corporate-outsourcing-as-terrorism. You should whip that one out more often.

The is a retarded statement.

Do you want to work for a dollar an hour?

Having a minimum wage that is livable increases the motivation to be employed.

But his pithy interjection was (I presume) predicated on points roughly similar to the ones I made above. What about the statement, "Other things equal, an increase in the minimum wage tends to increase unemployment," eludes you?

And what about it smacks you as 'retarded?'

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

From a government standpoint, minimum wage laws aren't there to protect the masses, they are there to prevent society from having to support people who can't make it on what they earn.

Using that definition, minimum wage laws have failed, and companies such as Walmart are effectively using minimum wage workers (or near minimum wage workers) who are collecting government benefits as an indirect subsidy of their business.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Okay, but what do you suggest be done when businesses respond to such legislation by simply firing employees en masse (i.e., downsizing to keep production costs as low as feasible)?

Business seems to be running pretty inefficient if they can get rid of workers and yet maintain the same production.

If this is the case, wouldn't the economy be better off if we didn't tie up people in jobs where it's effectively busywork?

 

[steve022]

Definitely. So many people struggle to support their families on minimum wage