WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
Ivars Seafood Restaurant (fast food) 9.00 hr to start here in Seattle.
Minimum wage to rise this week
- Thread starter Jeff C
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
I bet the soldiers in Iraq arent thinking about college right now, but if they'll make it home in one piece.
It doesn't matter if it's 5% or less, if one soldier dies, I guess they can't go to college, now can they? So my statement stands:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, of course the minimum wage laws are a form of protectionism in that they protect the worker, just like labor laws that define OT must be paid for time over 40 hours per week.
Protecting workers isn't a bad thing. I am sure you would agree, since I suspect you think without unions no worker would have ever been protected and all would be working today under harsh conditions for little pay.
I never said protectionism is absolutely bad. In the case of defining a minimum wage, or setting working conditions, that's a fine thing; especially when these"terms" are set by either the government or an independent govt agency (like OSHA, the EPA, the FDA). However, it is when large, private organization collude in order to demand their own terms, then I have issue. What's to keep an organization like that from asking for "too much".
I'm not into absolutes. If you want my opinion on protectionism, simply ask. Here are a few forms and what I think:
- US Dept of Labor, OSHA, EPA,... - Good as they define the rules for all domestic businesses
- Typical unions - There was a time these were valuable (but not so much now due to the above) and I think now they are more of a hindrance that ultimately hurt themselves and their members.
- Protection from globalization - If seriously pursued will hurt or economy by delaying the inevitable demise of companies that can't compete...is better to let them die quicker so that the new can emerge, as the new will be more profitable which is better for all.
So, yes, it is a form of protection, but not one that I see as harmful.
TJR
Protecting workers isn't a bad thing. I am sure you would agree, since I suspect you think without unions no worker would have ever been protected and all would be working today under harsh conditions for little pay.
I never said protectionism is absolutely bad. In the case of defining a minimum wage, or setting working conditions, that's a fine thing; especially when these"terms" are set by either the government or an independent govt agency (like OSHA, the EPA, the FDA). However, it is when large, private organization collude in order to demand their own terms, then I have issue. What's to keep an organization like that from asking for "too much".
I'm not into absolutes. If you want my opinion on protectionism, simply ask. Here are a few forms and what I think:
- US Dept of Labor, OSHA, EPA,... - Good as they define the rules for all domestic businesses
- Typical unions - There was a time these were valuable (but not so much now due to the above) and I think now they are more of a hindrance that ultimately hurt themselves and their members.
- Protection from globalization - If seriously pursued will hurt or economy by delaying the inevitable demise of companies that can't compete...is better to let them die quicker so that the new can emerge, as the new will be more profitable which is better for all.
So, yes, it is a form of protection, but not one that I see as harmful.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
So you pick and choose what protectionism to support?
I will bookmark this page for future refrence.
TJR Said...
Tom
I will bookmark this page for future refrence.
TJR Said...
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Why bookmark it Tom?
I have always said I don't think I have an absolute position on any "general" principle or ideal but instead can articulate my stance for specific examples, even when they contradict.
Yeah, sure, I've been a stickler when others here take a position on an issue, then contradict that stance on another issue. I show them how they have a contradiction between the two specific issues and the fundamental issue at hand and ask them to explain it (note the explanations I gave above). Often when I do that they get all bent out of shape and can't even recognized the fundamental, same issue. That trait and inability shows an inability to consider differing points of view and to think abstractly...things I actually try to pursuade people to do.
I'm introspective enough to recognize that there are basic ideals, like protectionism, or government authority, etc, that I most definiately have differing opinions on for specific situations. If I didn't, I would be a zealot, I suppose.
It's like the OPEC vs Union discussion we had long ago. I stated that OPEC is essentially the same as a union, and that if one were to support the rights of one, it seems they would be inclined to support the rights of the other. When I made that point to you, I think you claimed they aren't the same thing so there is no reason to why supporting one and not the other is a contradiction. A better argument, IMHO, would have been to simply recognize the sameness and then explain why you support one, but not the other, giving reasons why.
That's what I did above. I noted and recognized the "general" protectionism aspect of what you were describing, and explained why for "specific" examples I took the pro side, and others the con.
Later.
TJR
I have always said I don't think I have an absolute position on any "general" principle or ideal but instead can articulate my stance for specific examples, even when they contradict.
Yeah, sure, I've been a stickler when others here take a position on an issue, then contradict that stance on another issue. I show them how they have a contradiction between the two specific issues and the fundamental issue at hand and ask them to explain it (note the explanations I gave above). Often when I do that they get all bent out of shape and can't even recognized the fundamental, same issue. That trait and inability shows an inability to consider differing points of view and to think abstractly...things I actually try to pursuade people to do.
I'm introspective enough to recognize that there are basic ideals, like protectionism, or government authority, etc, that I most definiately have differing opinions on for specific situations. If I didn't, I would be a zealot, I suppose.
It's like the OPEC vs Union discussion we had long ago. I stated that OPEC is essentially the same as a union, and that if one were to support the rights of one, it seems they would be inclined to support the rights of the other. When I made that point to you, I think you claimed they aren't the same thing so there is no reason to why supporting one and not the other is a contradiction. A better argument, IMHO, would have been to simply recognize the sameness and then explain why you support one, but not the other, giving reasons why.
That's what I did above. I noted and recognized the "general" protectionism aspect of what you were describing, and explained why for "specific" examples I took the pro side, and others the con.
Later.
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Oh, Tom, you are so good...taking a quote from a whole thread and trying to make a point.
My point of saying "I am not anti-union, I am anti-protectionism", was in the context of unions and protecting members jobs.
As I just said above, I am all for agencies and organizations that protect the worker (reread your post in the thread you linked, just above mine, you are talking almost exclusively about the need for worker protection in the form that OSHA provides today). So, protecting workers in that way is a good thing. I'm all for it, and I don't think that today's union helps in delivering that type of protection...once, yes, not so much any more.
What I don't support is unions protecting their own jobs. That's the protectionism I meant by that quote.
So I am sorry if had a quote, that when extracted out of context sounded like an absolute. I don't do absolutes. If anyone sees me post one, simply ask for a clarification (as I provided above) and I will be glad to help out.
TJR
My point of saying "I am not anti-union, I am anti-protectionism", was in the context of unions and protecting members jobs.
As I just said above, I am all for agencies and organizations that protect the worker (reread your post in the thread you linked, just above mine, you are talking almost exclusively about the need for worker protection in the form that OSHA provides today). So, protecting workers in that way is a good thing. I'm all for it, and I don't think that today's union helps in delivering that type of protection...once, yes, not so much any more.
What I don't support is unions protecting their own jobs. That's the protectionism I meant by that quote.
So I am sorry if had a quote, that when extracted out of context sounded like an absolute. I don't do absolutes. If anyone sees me post one, simply ask for a clarification (as I provided above) and I will be glad to help out.
TJR
Dingo
Well-Known Member
Minimum wage is government mandated mediochrity.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dingo, please explain?
Seems to me for that to be true, that the minimum wage would have to be a living wage.
Or maybe I don't understand what you mean?
TJR
Seems to me for that to be true, that the minimum wage would have to be a living wage.
Or maybe I don't understand what you mean?
TJR
Dingo
Well-Known Member
Just like the old saying, "Water seeks it's own level."
People that are willing to work for minimum wage are exactly that. Willing.
Nobody has ever been forced to take a minimum wage job. Sometimes, due to lack of education, lack of training, etc, a person may be forced to temporarily take a minimum wage job to survive. That doesn't mean there's nothing they can do to rise above it. If they don't choose to take the necessary actions to better their lives, they deserve to stay where they are.
My basic point is that minimum wage is nothing but the government mandating that people be paid more for their lack of work ethic and drive.
People that are willing to work for minimum wage are exactly that. Willing.
Nobody has ever been forced to take a minimum wage job. Sometimes, due to lack of education, lack of training, etc, a person may be forced to temporarily take a minimum wage job to survive. That doesn't mean there's nothing they can do to rise above it. If they don't choose to take the necessary actions to better their lives, they deserve to stay where they are.
My basic point is that minimum wage is nothing but the government mandating that people be paid more for their lack of work ethic and drive.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dingo,
So all those 14 to 17 year olds that have few skills and just want part-time jobs should be at the mercy of whatever companies are willing to pay?
TJR
So all those 14 to 17 year olds that have few skills and just want part-time jobs should be at the mercy of whatever companies are willing to pay?
TJR
Dingo
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. They should use their heads and not take a wage that isn't acceptable to them. They should shop themselves around and take the best offer for their situation.
Also, may I point out that 14-17 year-olds don't have rent, mortgages, any real bills, etc? The average teenager making minimum wage has more disposable income than the average 4 person family.
Also, may I point out that 14-17 year-olds don't have rent, mortgages, any real bills, etc? The average teenager making minimum wage has more disposable income than the average 4 person family.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Dingo,
Almost all, unskilled, entry-level jobs start out paying minimum wage, and those young people that take them often don't have much other choices. Once in a job, though, through hard work and experience they can get raises quite quickly.
What's wrong with the govt telling employers the minimum they should pay for such jobs, anymore than the govt saying that blue collar employees that are non-exempt get paid overtime, are due sick days, etc?
TJR
Almost all, unskilled, entry-level jobs start out paying minimum wage, and those young people that take them often don't have much other choices. Once in a job, though, through hard work and experience they can get raises quite quickly.
What's wrong with the govt telling employers the minimum they should pay for such jobs, anymore than the govt saying that blue collar employees that are non-exempt get paid overtime, are due sick days, etc?
TJR
Dingo
Well-Known Member
I agree with your first point completely. I tried to convey that very point 4 posts up.
I'm not naive enough to think that I have the ability to influence the government's decision. I just don't support it. I also don't believe in government-mandated overtime, sick days, etc. I think there's WAY too much government in free enterprise. People should seek the employers and positions that suit their needs and desires the best.
For example, I've had several employees that I gave paid days off to as often as twice a month. They busted their ***** for me/the company, and I felt it fair to take care of the people that take care of me. I had one employee that I hired at $7 an hour. He was previously a forklift driver. During the couple of months after I hired him, he showed drive and determination and was well-rewarded for it. After 90 days, he was basically my apprentice, and I was teaching him engineering. I was paying him $15 an hour (More than double his wage at new hire), and I was still getting a deal for his hard work. I left that company for a better opportunity, and he was offered my job upon my leaving. He's now making $52k a year with no formal education. He has earned every penny of it, though, through his work-ethic and intelligence.
I'm not naive enough to think that I have the ability to influence the government's decision. I just don't support it. I also don't believe in government-mandated overtime, sick days, etc. I think there's WAY too much government in free enterprise. People should seek the employers and positions that suit their needs and desires the best.
For example, I've had several employees that I gave paid days off to as often as twice a month. They busted their ***** for me/the company, and I felt it fair to take care of the people that take care of me. I had one employee that I hired at $7 an hour. He was previously a forklift driver. During the couple of months after I hired him, he showed drive and determination and was well-rewarded for it. After 90 days, he was basically my apprentice, and I was teaching him engineering. I was paying him $15 an hour (More than double his wage at new hire), and I was still getting a deal for his hard work. I left that company for a better opportunity, and he was offered my job upon my leaving. He's now making $52k a year with no formal education. He has earned every penny of it, though, through his work-ethic and intelligence.
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
The PA min wage went up to $6.25 Jan 1 and to $7.15 July 1. My employees make more than that ($11.57 or $10.50, depending) but our travel time is based on min wage, so I charge more for what we do, and for jobs farther away I now charge extra. Generally when min wage goes up, businesses raise prices, hire less people, or both.
If I end up having to price myself out of business (most of my competition works under-the-table for a lot less), then being the free-market guy that I am I will close the doors, throw everyone out of work, and do something else.
As payroll goes up the cost of other things goes up too. My FICA payroll tax, insurances for liability, work comp, Federal and state unemployment, are all based on percentages of payroll.
If a business has a hard time attracting or keeping workers, that usually means they need to pay more money. If they don't, then it usually means they are paying enough money.
Other things being equal.
I have a degree in economics too.
If I end up having to price myself out of business (most of my competition works under-the-table for a lot less), then being the free-market guy that I am I will close the doors, throw everyone out of work, and do something else.
As payroll goes up the cost of other things goes up too. My FICA payroll tax, insurances for liability, work comp, Federal and state unemployment, are all based on percentages of payroll.
If a business has a hard time attracting or keeping workers, that usually means they need to pay more money. If they don't, then it usually means they are paying enough money.
Other things being equal.
I have a degree in economics too.
Paul Maurer 2
Well-Known Member
The minimum wage protects uneducated or uninformed workers from unscrupulous and/or greedy employers, who would use any excuse to pay less. Unfortunately, the minimum wage doesn't exist in China....
So now we are competing with people that are breaking the law. If there was no minimum wage, the law abiding business owner would still be at a disadvantage.
A fair tax would help curtail under the table workers....
Tom
Doctor CAD
Well-Known Member
When I was of "minimum wage" earning age, the rate was $2.35. The price of a burger King meal at that time was about $2.25. Todays minimum wage is $5.35. Guess what that same Burger King meal costs? Just about $5.35.
When the mi9nimum wage is $7.15, just how much do you think that Burger King meal will cost??? I'm guessing around $7.00 and change.
How does this help anybody?
When the mi9nimum wage is $7.15, just how much do you think that Burger King meal will cost??? I'm guessing around $7.00 and change.
How does this help anybody?
DoctorCAD,
So with your logic nobody should ever get a raise, therefore nothing would get expensive?
Gas went up, food went up, my wages went up. Why should those starting into the workforce only work for enough money to buy gas...and nothing more?
Tom
So with your logic nobody should ever get a raise, therefore nothing would get expensive?
Gas went up, food went up, my wages went up. Why should those starting into the workforce only work for enough money to buy gas...and nothing more?
Tom
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe people will start eating right instead of buying junk food.:lol:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
DoctorCad, I don't see your logic. Prices go up. so should wages, whether there is a minimum wage or not.
TJR
TJR
