Anyone know what percentage of the US workforce is making minimum wage?
Anyone know what percentage of all wages goes to minimum wage earners?
And what percentage of all wages goes to folks making up to the new minimum wage?
I'm wondering how many people we're talking about, here.
Cycloptichorn wrote: It seems to me that there are many, many businesses who make great profits by paying their employees as little as possible.
Of course!
Employers seek to minimize their costs. Payroll is part of that, and turnover and training is part of that. They have to strike a balance between paying too little and paying too much.
But for all but minimum wage workers, that's decided by the market place.
DrewDad wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: It seems to me that there are many, many businesses who make great profits by paying their employees as little as possible.
Of course!
Employers seek to minimize their costs. Payroll is part of that, and turnover and training is part of that. They have to strike a balance between paying too little and paying too much.
But for all but minimum wage workers, that's decided by the market place.
A minimum boundary is part of the marketplace itself.
I have no problems having special rules for those who make the absolute least out of everyone.
Cycloptichorn
So are you seeking to help those at the bottom, or punish those at the top?
DrewDad wrote:So are you seeking to help those at the bottom, or punish those at the top?
Both?
I don't believe in the unregulated acquisition of wealth....
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:DrewDad wrote:So are you seeking to help those at the bottom, or punish those at the top?
Both?
I'm not sure you've got the right tool for the job there, Chief.
DrewDad wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:DrewDad wrote:So are you seeking to help those at the bottom, or punish those at the top?
Both?
I'm not sure you've got the right tool for the job there, Chief.
Well, I'm seeking to help those at the bottom, and punish those at the top - but that has nothing to do with the minimum wage at all. Your question, however, didn't specify that.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:...There's also the inflation question: if the lowest wages (typically taken by unskilled workers) don't raise with inflation, then the poorest people in society become that much poorer....
Why is the minimum wage not tied to inflation? Surely there's a way to fix it so that the minimum wage will periodically readjust, without anyone having to campaign for it.(?)
Oh, of course not. Not on a thread about the minimum wage!
Advocate wrote:Engineer seems to be saying that there is no one making the minimum wage. I suggest that he check the IRS stats, which show there are many millions making it.
I'm saying that if you are making the minimum wage for long, something is wrong. What that is might vary from person to person, but even if you start at the MW, you should be able to take your experience elsewhere if your employer won't raise your pay.
Cycloptichorn wrote: Well, I'm seeking to help those at the bottom, and punish those at the top - but that has nothing to do with the minimum wage at all. Your question, however, didn't specify that.
I'm also not quite understanding the desire to punish those at the top....
Punish people for being successful?
Now if you're saying
place limits, I'd have to agree. Nothing is more dangerous to Capitalism than a
really successful capitalist.
DrewDad wrote:Anyone know what percentage of the US workforce is making minimum wage?
Anyone know what percentage of all wages goes to minimum wage earners?
And what percentage of all wages goes to folks making up to the new minimum wage?
I'm wondering how many people we're talking about, here.
Someone suggested the IRS had stats on this, but I couldn't find any on their website. I did find
this link showing that the last increase in the minimum wage cost people at the low end of the employment spectrum jobs.
DrewDad wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: Well, I'm seeking to help those at the bottom, and punish those at the top - but that has nothing to do with the minimum wage at all. Your question, however, didn't specify that.
I'm also not quite understanding the desire to punish those at the top....
Punish people for being successful?
Now if you're saying
place limits, I'd have to agree. Nothing is more dangerous to Capitalism than a
really successful capitalist.
Yes, I agree/that's what I meant. Unrestrained acquisition of wealth is no way to run a society.
Cycloptichorn
Drewdad, your thread really took off. I came back and read all the pages, perhaps not real carefully, but it seems there are many ideas about limiting this, or doing that, to artificially help a segment of the population.
Really what is at issue here is whether people really have confidence in the Free Market, and let it determine the prices, which includes price for labor. If one studies economics, you find out the free market makes the best decisions from the bottom up. When decisions about supply and demand, and prices, which would also include labor, are made from the top down, which would include an artificially set minimum wage, what results is unintended consequences.
When a communist leader came to America many years ago, I think during Reagan's presidency, and went into an American supermarket, he was literally amazed at the selection, the organization, the cleanliness, and the wide array of foods available. He was totally flummoxed as to why they could not achieve the same in the Soviet Union with central planning. I think that was part of the reason they became more open to market economics.
Setting an artificial level for anything in the free market brings unintended consequences. Remember Nixon's price limits on fuel, which brought the exact opposite consequence that was desired.
The free market economy determines from the bottom up (from the consumer) the best allocation of scarce resources that have limited uses, of which labor is one of those resources in the economy. Therefore, an artificially set minimum wage law does nothing positive for the economy as a whole, except make politicians feel good about doing something.
Imagine if you take this to an extreme and set the minimum wage at $100 per hour. Very few people would study in school, at least for a while, and nobody would need a skill, and everyone would be competing for mundane jobs at high wages. This would lead to a stagnant economy, with high tech companies going into the tank without a skilled employees, and the ones they could get would require paying them more than ever. This effect and the other spin-off effects would have far reaching negative effects to the economy and the country.
Conversely, if people are paid low wages for unskilled labor, which is the real value of low skilled jobs, this causes young people to realize sooner than they might otherwise realize, that they need more skills and training, which is good for a highly technical economy in the long run. Lets face it, to continue to enjoy a high standard of living and to compete in the world, we need a highly trained and skilled population. If we artificially subsidize or prop up low skilled jobs, we end up with more unskilled work force, and in the long run, we suffer as a country.
Bottom line, we need a better education system and more young people finding training and technical and scientific skills in a very competitive free market atmosphere. If we artificially prop up a minimum wage level, we end up with more and more service economy, where we end up consuming each other and eroding our wealth as a nation. One of the ways to maintain our standard of living is to recognize what got us here in the first place, and it was the free market economy. It makes us all better, and we need to quit trying to punish the rich, as the rich provide jobs and the wealth brings everybody up. Call it trickle down, but face it, third world countries are full of poor people for a reason. Shared misery is not the road to prosperity.
The minimum wage, as it is now, is merely window dressing, because it is about what the free market would pay anyway, but we should just quit kidding ourself and just get rid of it.
We really need an ignore function on this site. I get tired of being tempted to read insane drivel.
Cycloptichorn wrote:DrewDad wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote: Well, I'm seeking to help those at the bottom, and punish those at the top - but that has nothing to do with the minimum wage at all. Your question, however, didn't specify that.
I'm also not quite understanding the desire to punish those at the top....
Punish people for being successful?
Now if you're saying
place limits, I'd have to agree. Nothing is more dangerous to Capitalism than a
really successful capitalist.
Yes, I agree/that's what I meant. Unrestrained acquisition of wealth is no way to run a society.
Cycloptichorn
Where is cyclo when I need him, he actually has the patience to refute the nonsense posted by those who don't have a clue what they are talking about. Sick em!
okie wrote:Drewdad, your thread really took off. I came back and read all the pages, perhaps not real carefully, but it seems there are many ideas about limiting this, or doing that, to artificially help a segment of the population.
Really what is at issue here is whether people really have confidence in the Free Market, and let it determine the prices, which includes price for labor. If one studies economics, you find out the free market makes the best decisions from the bottom up. When decisions about supply and demand, and prices, which would also include labor, are made from the top down, which would include an artificially set minimum wage, what results is unintended consequences.
Unrestrained capitalism has its dangers, too. Don't forget the era of the Robber Barons. I seem to recall some real horror stories about the meat packing plants, too....
As for artificially helping segments of the population, I'd just as soon not have people starving in the streets. I just happen to think that there's probably a more effective method than the minimum wage, if we were only to look.
DrewDad wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:We really need an ignore function on this site. I get tired of being tempted to read insane drivel.
I couldn't agree more.
If you guys use Firefox, you can download a script implementing just this ignore function. I've been using it for about a year and it's been working very well for me. When I find the thread where Old Europe presented it, I'll post a link.
DrewDad wrote:
As for artificially helping segments of the population, I'd just as soon not have people starving in the streets. I just happen to think that there's probably a more effective method than the minimum wage, if we were only to look.
Actually, we have a couple of programs in the US that have been exceptionally successful in mitigating the absolute worst effects of poverty. Two that come to mind are Social Security and the School Lunch Program. SS doesn't eliminate elderly poverty, but it does take a bit of the edge off. To me, it's also made a statement that as Americans, we value those who have worked all their lives building our country enough to give them a minimum safety net. The school lunch program effectively eliminated childhood starvation in this country. Implemented in response to cases of severe starvation found in our country after WWII, it provides calories (perhaps too many these days) and encourages school attendance at the same time.
