Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.
What a person is worth is a complex philosophical question -- one not easily answered. I agree that what a person offers, in goods or labor, is worth what someone is willing to give them in exchange for those goods or labor.
Topic: Minimum wage. - page 5. (Read 4826 times)
ahh, the challenge of parenting. Not everyone can afford to send their child to college but they can instill a work ethic. It is an excuse to say that some people are incapable of more than stuffing boxes at a fulfillment center. I do not believe that. Sure, there are some folks who are mentally challenged, yet still in the workplace, and that is understandable but to those who are more interested in beer and cigarette money than paying rent, that is laziness.
Yeah... all of those blue collar workers that are being undercut by automation and technology are just lazy. They could be just like Edison if they worked at it.You are ignoring reality.
I don't think that is the case, as illustrated by your post. Businesses pay their employees what they have to based on the market supply and demand, not based on what they contribute to the worth of the business.
That's also what I meant. Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.Employees and their time is worth what the market determines.
I don't think that is the case, as illustrated by your post. Businesses pay their employees what they have to based on the market supply and demand, not based on what they contribute to the worth of the business.
for me it's all of the above. A developer who allows me to introduce products in less time than other developers is valuable to me.A salesperson who brings in good numbers is compensated well for their success. Those successful salsepeople then allow me to hire good developers so we can create better products thus making it easier to sell and the cycle continues.
But, that all began with a dream (mine) and risking EVERYTHING and getting the product and market right. If I was wrong, then there would be no salespeople as I was the initial salesperson. There would be no development "team" as I could not initially afford them.
I hold all accountable and don't measure by hours worked. If I make a mistake and hire a person with a poor work ethic, I quickly release them. I owe it to myself, to my shareholders and employees (who also have options) and to my customers.
I can't have price increases to compensate for lazy employees (this isn't the govt). I can't have lost revenue due to lazy employees which then affects the performers.
I'm not in a sector where I have min wage employees but a fair argument is that if min wage increases by 40%, should I increase wages by 40% of all of my employees? How do I tell them that they are now only worth 3x min wage as opposed to 4x or more? If I compensate for the min wage increase and give a proportionate increase across the board, how do I determine which employee(s) I lay off in order to free up the cash flow to hand out the pay raises?
You see, a magic pot of money does not come my way the first day/week/month/quarter/year after a wage increase. I have a finite cash flow and must manage it.
I am positive 100% that retail stores and other min wage type employers have the same concern that a pot of money does not arrive the day/week/month/quarter that min wage increases and that they would need to compensate for the cash flow impact.
You can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is a fact that half the population has below average IQ, and their labor is the most valuable thing they can offer. As that labor becomes obsolete, what do we do? Telling people to be more like Edison is not a realistic approach to this looming problem.
ahh, the challenge of parenting. Not everyone can afford to send their child to college but they can instill a work ethic. It is an excuse to say that some people are incapable of more than stuffing boxes at a fulfillment center. I do not believe that. Sure, there are some folks who are mentally challenged, yet still in the workplace, and that is understandable but to those who are more interested in beer and cigarette money than paying rent, that is laziness. 
This really is going to be a blip on a timeline because unemployment for close to 50% of the population is very near. We already see pensions for most people under 40 gone!
It will be some form of guaranteed income as we adjust to the rapid push towards being more automated.
Big companies have seen this coming for a well now and did nothing but squeeze the workers they controlled.
It will be some form of guaranteed income as we adjust to the rapid push towards being more automated.
Big companies have seen this coming for a well now and did nothing but squeeze the workers they controlled.
Businesses pay their employees what their time to the business is worth. Pay too little, the quality of the individual employee goes down, pay higher wages and the quality of the applicants goes up, along with the productivity of the company (providing that it's managed correctly)
I would love to have the guys who work under me and who I couldn't do without to get paid the maximum amount that we can afford, guess what? They already do. Anymore and our bottom line (profits for the LIV's out there) will begin to suffer.
If our profits fall then so does the chance of our company expanding and hiring more people.
If we paid too little, our competition wouldn't have a hard time attracting our employees to work for them.
The greatest myth about the minimum wage among the majority of it's supporters is that every business owner sleeps on a king size mattress stuffed with $100 bills because he/she won't pay their employees a "fair living wage"
Minimum wage is a political ploy that decreases prosperity and drives inflation, that in turn creates more dependant on the government voters (guess who they vote for?)
It's OK though, Hillary Clinton is out there campaigning for "the little guy" and will soon make it all alright by taxing the "rich" (unless they bought her for protection)
I don't think that is the case, as illustrated by your post. Businesses pay their employees what they have to based on the market supply and demand, not based on what they contribute to the worth of the business. I would love to have the guys who work under me and who I couldn't do without to get paid the maximum amount that we can afford, guess what? They already do. Anymore and our bottom line (profits for the LIV's out there) will begin to suffer.
If our profits fall then so does the chance of our company expanding and hiring more people.
If we paid too little, our competition wouldn't have a hard time attracting our employees to work for them.
The greatest myth about the minimum wage among the majority of it's supporters is that every business owner sleeps on a king size mattress stuffed with $100 bills because he/she won't pay their employees a "fair living wage"
Minimum wage is a political ploy that decreases prosperity and drives inflation, that in turn creates more dependant on the government voters (guess who they vote for?)
It's OK though, Hillary Clinton is out there campaigning for "the little guy" and will soon make it all alright by taxing the "rich" (unless they bought her for protection)
Irrespective of its economic effects, it's coercive. It obstructs voluntary association. I am therefore opposed to it.
The biological realities of the maintenance of one's existence (e.g., a need of food and potable water) and the failure to provide therefor (e.g., starvation and dehydration unto death) are also "coercive" (Riniojet). However, in the case of natural "coerc[ion]" (Riniojet), one, such as the solitary earth human, does not have a means to effect any meaningful impact thereupon, so, instead, it will move unto those "coerc[ions]" (Riniojet) that it can, itself, "coerc[e]" (Riniojet) (e.g., "the minimum wage" [KriszDev]).
Quote from: David Konstan, “Epicurus,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014
[Epicurus] regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires.
You can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is a fact that half the population has below average IQ, and their labor is the most valuable thing they can offer. As that labor becomes obsolete, what do we do? Telling people to be more like Edison is not a realistic approach to this looming problem.
Failing to solve a person's problem for them is not the same as ignoring it. What society can (and should) do is be honest with people. Tell folks if what they're doing now is not very valuable or will likely have no value at all (become obsolete) in the near future.The reality is if many people do not become more like Edison, if they do not start finding ways to contribute other than running errands and turning wheels, then (according to your prediction) their contributions will become obsolete. Their current contributions will no longer be valued by society. You have not established as a fact that half the population has nothing to offer more valuable than zero.
It is my sincere hope people will listen. If they choose to ignore the problem and hope it goes away... the future will be difficult for them.
all fluff: no meat on the bone
I gave specifics with specific questions
Who gets to determine what is included in a living wage? To some, having cable tv with all of the sports channels is a necessity. Having an I-Phone and annual upgrades is a neccessity. A fairly new car for each driver is a necessity.
Why should a person working the snack bar at the theater have to live in a studio apartment sharing rent with another snack bar employee while the general manager owns a 3 bedroom home? They both put in the hours so why should the manager own a home? The only solution is to reduce the income of the general manager and reduce his/her standard of living downward, because history shows that govt policies do not lift up people. Do you agree that there should be equity in lifestyle of the general manager and the snack bar employee if they work the same number of hours?
I gave specifics with specific questions
Who gets to determine what is included in a living wage? To some, having cable tv with all of the sports channels is a necessity. Having an I-Phone and annual upgrades is a neccessity. A fairly new car for each driver is a necessity.
Why should a person working the snack bar at the theater have to live in a studio apartment sharing rent with another snack bar employee while the general manager owns a 3 bedroom home? They both put in the hours so why should the manager own a home? The only solution is to reduce the income of the general manager and reduce his/her standard of living downward, because history shows that govt policies do not lift up people. Do you agree that there should be equity in lifestyle of the general manager and the snack bar employee if they work the same number of hours?
I doubt there are that many people who are incapable of being more like Edison. Whether I am right or wrong doesn't change the truth of your prediction -- the contributions many are offering now will have a value of zero in the near future.
I would say those people really have only two choices: find another way to contribute or fail to contribute. We will need less physical labor. We will need more people solving problems. I believe more of us can and will step up to the challenge of developing new solutions and advancing America's productivity.
You can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is a fact that half the population has below average IQ, and their labor is the most valuable thing they can offer. As that labor becomes obsolete, what do we do? Telling people to be more like Edison is not a realistic approach to this looming problem. I would say those people really have only two choices: find another way to contribute or fail to contribute. We will need less physical labor. We will need more people solving problems. I believe more of us can and will step up to the challenge of developing new solutions and advancing America's productivity.
So what is your proposal for the millions of people who do not have the intellectual capacity to "be like Edison" and whose physical labor is being rendered obsolete by technological advances?
I doubt there are that many people who are incapable of being more like Edison. Whether I am right or wrong doesn't change the truth of your prediction -- the contributions many are offering now will have a value of zero in the near future.I would say those people really have only two choices: find another way to contribute or fail to contribute. We will need less physical labor. We will need more people solving problems. I believe more of us can and will step up to the challenge of developing new solutions and advancing America's productivity.
*shrug* For a society to advance, it's people must advance. During Edison's time it may have been absurd to suggest many people should be like Edison (able to read). Today we have that expectation. Tomorrow we will expect more.
There will always be some who can't keep up. Society will carry a limited number of those folks despite their lack of contribution. But there is a limit to how many any society can or will carry. If people want more of society, society will ask more of people.
So what is your proposal for the millions of people who do not have the intellectual capacity to "be like Edison" and whose physical labor is being rendered obsolete by technological advances? There will always be some who can't keep up. Society will carry a limited number of those folks despite their lack of contribution. But there is a limit to how many any society can or will carry. If people want more of society, society will ask more of people.
The idea that everyone should just be like Edison is absurd.
*shrug* For a society to advance, it's people must advance. During Edison's time it may have been absurd to suggest many people should be like Edison (able to read). Today we have that expectation. Tomorrow we will expect more.There will always be some who can't keep up. Society will carry a limited number of those folks despite their lack of contribution. But there is a limit to how many any society can or will carry. If people want more of society, society will ask more of people.
The answer is to tell them to get out of the business of selling their labor and to get into the business of solving problems. John Henry demonstrated that competing with a machine at simple labor isn't a good way to make a living. But Edison showed that same perspiration applied to coming up with new mechanisms to serve man can change the world.
As long as we have problems, we'll have jobs. Future jobs will require less labor and more ambition.
The idea that everyone should just be like Edison is absurd. As long as we have problems, we'll have jobs. Future jobs will require less labor and more ambition.
I think raising the minimum wage to what it would be if it had kept pace with inflation would have little, if any, negative impact on jobs and the economy in the short term. But I also think it would do little to solve the question of how to deal with a large segment of society that simply does not have the ability to compete with technology for livable wages.
The answer is to tell them to get out of the business of selling their labor and to get into the business of solving problems. John Henry demonstrated that competing with a machine at simple labor isn't a good way to make a living. But Edison showed that same perspiration applied to coming up with new mechanisms to serve man can change the world.As long as we have problems, we'll have jobs. Future jobs will require less labor and more ambition.
I think raising the minimum wage to what it would be if it had kept pace with inflation would have little, if any, negative impact on jobs and the economy in the short term. But I also think it would do little to solve the question of how to deal with a large segment of society that simply does not have the ability to compete with technology for livable wages.
the concept that all jobs should provide a "living wage" again becomes subjective. Who gets to define what is a "living wage"
One can try and say the poverty level but someone needs to put meat on the bone. Does a living wage mean a car less than 5 years old for each driver?
Does it mean a separate bedroom for each family member?
Must all TVs be at least 42 inches?
should they have air conditioning?
If they have children, should their salary be increased for every child they choose to have?
In other words, the person selling you tickets at the theater who has 3 children should be paid a lot more than the 16 year old teenager. Would that not be "fair" and provide the "living wage" ?
Most companies will pay the minimum wage if there is profit to be made. No profit = no businesses or jobs.One can try and say the poverty level but someone needs to put meat on the bone. Does a living wage mean a car less than 5 years old for each driver?
Does it mean a separate bedroom for each family member?
Must all TVs be at least 42 inches?
should they have air conditioning?
If they have children, should their salary be increased for every child they choose to have?
In other words, the person selling you tickets at the theater who has 3 children should be paid a lot more than the 16 year old teenager. Would that not be "fair" and provide the "living wage" ?
They will obviously make less profit when min wage goes up but can adjust prices to compensate. If the min wage went up so high as to eliminate profit they would close.
The story we keep on hearing though is that less profit = closed businesses. Which is nonsense. If you can prove that business would lose all profit from a rise in min wage then you have a point.
The working poor.
Governments slap themselves on the back when unemployment numbers go down. Why? Minimum wages and part time work.
These people struggle to put food on the table and often have to work two jobs. Poor wages and little or no benefits.
Meanwhile, corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
Our system has not changed much in 2000 years. It is still the master/slave system but with an intricate smoke screen covering the ugliness.
Governments slap themselves on the back when unemployment numbers go down. Why? Minimum wages and part time work.
These people struggle to put food on the table and often have to work two jobs. Poor wages and little or no benefits.
Meanwhile, corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
Our system has not changed much in 2000 years. It is still the master/slave system but with an intricate smoke screen covering the ugliness.
the concept that all jobs should provide a "living wage" again becomes subjective. Who gets to define what is a "living wage"
One can try and say the poverty level but someone needs to put meat on the bone. Does a living wage mean a car less than 5 years old for each driver?
Does it mean a separate bedroom for each family member?
Must all TVs be at least 42 inches?
should they have air conditioning?
If they have children, should their salary be increased for every child they choose to have?
In other words, the person selling you tickets at the theater who has 3 children should be paid a lot more than the 16 year old teenager. Would that not be "fair" and provide the "living wage" ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-20204594 One can try and say the poverty level but someone needs to put meat on the bone. Does a living wage mean a car less than 5 years old for each driver?
Does it mean a separate bedroom for each family member?
Must all TVs be at least 42 inches?
should they have air conditioning?
If they have children, should their salary be increased for every child they choose to have?
In other words, the person selling you tickets at the theater who has 3 children should be paid a lot more than the 16 year old teenager. Would that not be "fair" and provide the "living wage" ?
Jump to: