Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Minimum Wage?
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/19/14 05:02 PM
which one,, Ive read so many on these threads we share together? The one in purple that you posted. oh out of context sensationalism is SO BIG RIGHT NOW,,,lol this one: I wonder why those who aren't black even care what blacks do, or those who aren't female care what females do, or those who aren't American care about what americans do,,, oh ,wait, no I don't, because I kind of AKNOWLEDGE no one is living in a vacuum and peoples actions directly and indirectly are tied to each other in some way, tied to the community in which they must live TOGETHER,,, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 05/19/14 05:02 PM
sales,, in SALES,,,, yes its volume of sales. Before expenses.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/19/14 05:11 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,,

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Mon 05/19/14 06:19 PM
It doesn't matter even one bit what the number is. A higher number is arbitrary. Purchasing power is what matters. If less people are working because businesses can't afford the higher wages, then less is produced which means less for everyone no matter how you redistribute it. If EVERYONE worked, even at 1 cent an hour, more wealth would be created and we could all buy more. Money is after all nothing but a representation of labor. If no one labors, doesn't matter if you have a $500 minimum wage. Not suggesting that we have a 1 cent minimum wage, but not $16 per hour for flipping burgers either. There should be no minimum wage whatsoever, it deprives people of the ability to work. It's really a very simple proposition. If the minimum wage is $8 an hour, then anyone that only has skills worth less than $8 are deprived of an opportunity to be employed. No one in their right mind would pay $8 an hour for a $5 an hour person. They will just upgrade the position to someone with better skills, now the $5 an hour person is unemployable unless they upgrade their skill set. The problem with the burger flippers lies not only with the government's idea they can do a better job but their total disdain for the populace. Fast food joints can only remain profitable if they have cheap labor, traditionally college students and pensioners looking for some extra earnings. But now it's not college students, but college grads with huge student loans. That also holds true for retail, that same retail that has been destroyed by the big box companies, especially Walmart. But I do hope that fast food gets their $15 an hour raise. The outcome will be totally unexpected by the masses but a real contribution to health. And this could be the straw that broke the camel's back, the loss of even entry level jobs.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Mon 05/19/14 06:23 PM
balance is key both extremes have to compromise just as employers may hire less and therefore produce less due to wages too high employees may have less In their pocket and therefore have less to spend sue to wages to low ( in which case all that extra that was produced wont matter either) Balance, what balance? Sure let's have compromise, the business closes their doors and the flippers join the bread line. Let's see, how many millions added to the unemployed roles? And there forward is just gibberish, can you restate that in a manner that conveys a complete thought? Who would be suing whom?

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 05/19/14 06:29 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,, You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Mon 05/19/14 06:29 PM Edited by alnewman on Mon 05/19/14 07:00 PM
http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2014/05/mcdonald-installs-7000-robot-cashiers McDonald's in Europe is installing 7,000 kiosks that will allow customers to place their own orders without the assistance of a human cashier, http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2014/05/restaurant-self-order-kiosks http://mises.org/daily/6638/Welfare-Minimum-Wages-and-Unemployment as an aside,we are voting whether to install a Minimum-Wage here in Switzerland or not this very weekend! yep,that's right! There is NO minimumwage here,and there still might not be! Sort of like the olden days when cafeteria switched over to the vending slot concept. Reduced labor by more than half. All they had to do was cook, wrap, stick in slot and wash the dishes. Later they started using paper plates and the dishwasher requirements where reduced to kitchen utensils. And you don't want minimum wage, it is a job killer for the lower end of things. Those first two links were interesting but that third link was right on. While the article lists the controversies, I would like to see one go farther into the problem, the upward creep of the economy that over time negates the increase.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/19/14 06:36 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,, You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit. if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,,

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Mon 05/19/14 07:07 PM
In America there should be no wage so low that if one was to work a 40 hour week that their take home pay would still be considered below poverty. Of course you can subsidize with food stamps Medicaid and subsidized housing..and that puts it right where large corporations and their over paid CEOs want it right on the backs of the taxpayers..ASC Why not, if that's what they are worth, that is what they are paid. Don't want to work for a corporation then work for yourself and see what you are really worth. 80% would be back at less than before. And if you think CEOs are overpaid, then stop doing business with them. But then you probably also think it ok that some idiot that can play with some ball makes millions is ok. The pure idiocy of the masses.

yoopergal Joined Tue 04/09/13 Posts: 4	Mon 05/19/14 07:42 PM
A person working 40 hours per week should be able to put food on the table, pay for shelter, pay for medical care and pay for transportation and oh yes, pay for clothing. 7.00 an hour doesn't afford for the necessities in life. Any job is an honorable job.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 05/19/14 07:47 PM
well they may only be a 5 dollar an hour person,, people shouldn't have to pay those people more than 5 dollars even if it means they are without the appropriate food and shelter and clothing,,,, <sarcasm> welcome to the threads yooper

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Mon 05/19/14 08:11 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,, You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit. if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,, Yes I was getting ready for the gym and was off by a power of 10. The point being its volume of sales. Its has nothing to do with costs of products or production or labor. If customers pay you a total of 500k a year you qualify. Like I said $200 a day for 300 days is already 100k over that value.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 05/20/14 01:40 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,, You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit. if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,, Yes I was getting ready for the gym and was off by a power of 10. The point being its volume of sales. Its has nothing to do with costs of products or production or labor. If customers pay you a total of 500k a year you qualify. Like I said $200 a day for 300 days is already 100k over that value. no,, 200 dollars a day for 300 days is only 60000 dollars,,,,

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 05/20/14 06:13 PM
understood, two major expenses would be the rent, (24000 for a 2000/mo space) and wages ( 62.5 thousand for three employees at 10 per hour full time), would make for expenses of 88000 out of that 500000 remaining expenses could be twice as much as the two MAJOR expenses ad still leave nearly 250000 in profit from sales,,, You are not grasping the concept. I sell a product for $10,000. I sell 5 products a year. My profit on each of the products is $1000 as costs were $9000 to procure them. I still did 500k in sales volume though I only earned 5k profit. if you sold five products at 10 k each, you only did 50000 in sales, your procurement is but one of many costs, and is factored in FROM The sales,,, Yes I was getting ready for the gym and was off by a power of 10. The point being its volume of sales. Its has nothing to do with costs of products or production or labor. If customers pay you a total of 500k a year you qualify. Like I said $200 a day for 300 days is already 100k over that value. no,, 200 dollars a day for 300 days is only 60000 dollars,,,, I will be the first to admit when I can't do math lol. You are correct.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Tue 05/20/14 06:20 PM Edited by msharmony on Tue 05/20/14 06:23 PM
not a biggy,,, I understand what you are saying about expenses, but relatively speaking, when people are in business they have to make determinations about their costs that are going to leave them profit with their sales.

isaac_dede Joined Sat 11/24/07 Posts: 10632	Tue 05/20/14 07:36 PM
Again, if corporations have the funds to stuff in off-shore bank accounts they have the money to pay their workers better. Companies should have been increasing their pay all along(whether or not their was a minimum wage in place). Maybe minimum wage isn't where we start, I understand that companies shouldn't be required to pay a career equivalent salary for 'flipping burgers' because that is the 'go-to' argument for the people against it. Those 'flipping burger' jobs, never have been, and never should be a 'career' position instead these are jobs that should be filled by high-school students or recently graduated high-school students, who have one of the highest unemployment rates for their demographic. Instead we have allowed companies to hire people who aren't even eligible to work in the U.S, and because of this they are willing to accept very low pay, and often feel they have no choice in doing so, the companies need to be fined heavily if they are caught employing anyone not eligible to legally work in this country. Maybe if companies weren't allowed to skirt the law, on taxes, hiring practices, and other things as well. There are other things we could do as well in regards to laws(or the repealing of those laws if necessary) for example, did you know in the U.S. if you wanted to LEGALLY operate a Lemonade stand(you know like they did way back when, when children wanted to learn the value of earning a dollar) that it would cost you almost $60,000 in permits? Seriously? So maybe instead of requiring start-up businesses and mom+pop business to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on so many permits, we require them to pay a 'fair wage' for their business, and if that wage falls a certain %below poverty level, they have their license revoked, or are fined, or some other type of punishment. I also think tax-breaks should be given to start-up business, more businesses more jobs, more competition, better all around. I'm for a sliding scale for business maybe first 1 no taxes, then increase taxes slowly for the next four years until they are paying the same tax rate as larger business. That way these businesses could afford to pay a higher wage, and if there was more of them, they would have to in order to stay competitive, or they wouldn't get any employees and they would fold. And to those outside of the U.S. whose countries are well-founded and have already gone through the current growing-pains the U.S is going through, we wouldn't need some of these rules in place if corrruption wasn't so rampant, for example, one of 'community development' you know the ones there to 'help the community' got caught embezzling over $700,000 for a board of 5 members....their fine? pay it back at $50/mo until payed off....and the judge had the nerve to say that was a "very stiff penalty" now i'm not sure about you but for me that math doesn't add up, that means in order for them to pay the money back fully it would take them 166 years!...very stiff penalty ok. But this is just one example of the corruption If we can't seem to get rid of the corruption, or at least hammer the companies so hard it wouldn't be worth it, maybe the next best thing is to at least enforce an acceptable wage

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Wed 05/21/14 05:48 PM Edited by alnewman on Wed 05/21/14 06:14 PM
Asian, as simplistic as this sounds, it is actually already true for SINGLE people and doable for families. Outstanding comprehension, but just where did Asian come from? Are you replying to the guy from Tennessee, AlienSleeperCell? There could be an extensive discussion here about the difference between being in poverty and having wealth and the LARGE area in between, but your point is on point, let me explain. IN the Us we have a poverty threshold that is calculated in the following manner: Poverty line, or poverty threshold, is used to mark the minimum income needed to achieve a satisfactory standard of living. While this may mean different thing in different parts of the world, in the US, being above this threshold means having access to water, food, shelter, education, medical care, and adequate clothing. The poverty line varies widely depending on the state, the number of people living in the household, the number of children in the household, and factors like disability and access to medical care. http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-united-states-how-is-the-poverty-line-determined.htm Now, in 2010 for example, for a single person, that very rarely would they work and be in poverty in the US considering the poverty threshold. In the US, the poverty line rises or falls every year according to the Consumer Price Index and other factors. In 2010, a single person needed to earn a minimum of $11,139 US Dollars (USD) (more in Alaska and Hawaii) a year to stay over the threshold. calculating that with a 40 hour work week, the single person only needed 5.35 per hour. Even if we reduced I to a part time 30 hour week that would require 7.15. per hour. There is really no reason any SINGLE person in America working at least 30 hours per week should be in poverty. Now just exactly how does this work, your first bold statement is that it varies wildly depending on the state and your backing statement says that it's a set sum except in Alaska and Hawaii, so which is it? And what about payroll deductions or does this only work if on welfare as part of the entitlement crowd? I mean you don't seem to understand the term "work". And being it's 2014, why are is there a discussion of history? And you are saying that it's all based on the Consumer Price Index, just what is the consumer price index? How is it determined? What is it really for? Isn't this the index they use to determine welfare benefits? How does this apply to others? the change happens in FAMILIES where individuals are also supporting those BESIDEDS themselves. In 2010. A family of four needed a combined income of at least $22,113 USD. According to these guidelines, more than 46.2 million people in the US were living in poverty in that year. Still, for a family with only ONE working member, that would only require a work week of 40 hours at 10.63, which is definitely a doable minimum wage,, imho,, however, IF that one person has less than 40 hours of work a week , the chances for poverty would be higher. So this does represent the welfare principle that the more kids you can't afford but have, the more one would be entitled to receive from somewhere. And it seems the answer to the situation would be to use the government's guns to enforce some arbitrary wage that has little to do with value, so that someone whose total worth seems to be in increasing a family they can ill afford to raise. All in the name of entitlement, some entitled to receive and the other entitled to pay. And we wonder how we got here from a free country, wonder no more. we would lift many out of what is considered 'poverty' with a mere minimum wage of 10.63 per hour, but being in poverty is better than being dead I guess.. so as long as something is better than nothing is our mantra, I don't see the country getting behind any 'mandated' income for anyone...... Mere wage of 10.63, ignoring all the consequences, so typical of entitlement. So answer this, what happens to those that aren't worth $10.63 an hour? Do they just disappear or do we now add them to the roles of the ones supported entirely by that stolen from others.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Wed 05/21/14 06:32 PM
Not all jobs were created to be a career. Any job that is no skill not worth the pay increase will (if there was one) would soon find the workers replaced with machines. It is the individuals responsibility to strive for success, to increase their skills set, and to pursue a career/wealth. I am not opposed to assistance in the pursuit of these goals. However I don't agree with raising wage for menial work so people never have to try to improve their situation. Maybe its not a matter of whether a person can better themselves as opposed to maybe its just what they can find at the time..or a high school student or a widow who just lost her husband and was a housewife all her life and the situations can go on and on..beyond the reasoning of whether a person is willing to better themselves.So they should have to work for slave wages because that's all there is or that's all they can find in the mean time until they can find the opportunity to make a better wage..and these wages coming from major corporations who wouldn't have prospered and grown into what they are today.. if it weren't for the efforts of these so called "menial workers" A high school student doesn't really need to make more than current minimum wage. I worked in high school and college and made minimum wage. I like how my mention big corporations. What about mom and pop shops? I guess we can just squish those guys even more since they don't have the assets to compete already much less if we increase their labor costs. Also you want to give some examples of companies and minimum wage workers? Oh and fast food doesn't work since those are franchised and corporations don't pay wages to store workers the franchise owners do. Warren Buffet's No 2, Charlie Munger, would agree with you. He started at $0.40 an hour and now, billionaire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNp-bg_5jU Buffett's No. 2: Boost minimum wage, and this doesn't mean what it implies, real story very revealing.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Wed 05/21/14 06:37 PM
generally, minimum wage applies to those employers making more than half a million in sales per year I wouldnt consider that your standard 'mom and pop' And just where did that little jewel come from? Oh wait, silly me, what was I thinking about, expecting some facts.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Wed 05/21/14 06:41 PM
The Act applies to enterprises with employees who engage in interstate commerce, produce goods for interstate commerce, or handle, sell, or work on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce. For most firms, a test of not less than $500,000 in annual dollar volume of business applies (i.e., the Act does not cover enterprises with less than this amount of business). http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm That's right those states don't count at all. Must be associated with the Odumboite theory of government. But I'm sure that the entitlement crowd in Washington state and DC would really be pissed to give back their money.