Question for Minimum Wage supporters

this is the pure beauty of capitalism! An employer must have the best jobs and products in the world just to survive. If you doubt it try going into business with substandard jobs and products and tell us how long you survive.

 

Yeah, Federally, it's a problem nation wide.

We're not into dispensing, or manufacture. Accessories & such. It truly is a new gold rush situation. Just as with the gold rush, it's not the people dealing with marijuana specifically seeing great opportunity per se, the auxiliary businesses, such as ours, & check cashing / money order businesses, & travel related businesses etc., that are really reaping the benefits, without the Potential negative Federal consequences.

I'll stop, as I'm sure I'm way off topic.

Kinda.

I mean were it legal Federally, & more states jumped on board, the boost to the economy in general, across the board, including an inevitable explosion in the after market manufacturing possibilities that would be fed with the waste products from the cultivation/sales would definitely help in raising wages, & providing more jobs, & tax revenue.

 

Incorrect...an employer IS NOT required to have the 'best jobs and products in the world'...they simply need to be able to remain competitive.

Doesn't change my post which said;

An employer MUST PAY whatever is demanded by the labor force!
An employer MUST be competitive in order to keep the doors open.

 

Workers make 100% the decision where to work and how much compensation...no one holds a gun to anyone's head.

If a worker has a greater worth than the compensation they have agreed to accept...the worker must accept the situation or find another job.

Nothing is in the employer's favor? A company must hire, and train, and compensate workers in return for some labor. Labor market costs don't go up and down daily...maybe yearly or each decade. The employer understands the local cost of labor and this is either acceptable or not. If not, the employer must seek other options to bring down cost. If the employee wants to earn more then the employee needs to find another job...it can't be any more simple than this.

Employers don't 'take advantage'...employers use all the options they have to remain competitive...this is business!

 

Under a better economy, I'd agree 100% that there is no gun held to a worker's head, forcing them to take low wages for their work. Today however, unionized or not, this is simply not the case. The poor economy, coupled with fewer & fewer well paying jobs are that gun now unfortunately.

Honestly, labor costs can vary widely quarter to quarter, depending on markets, & competition.

I agree employers by and large just try to remain competitive, and aren't solely out for screwing the workers. Fact remains though, in areas hit particularly hard by this UberRecession, there are many "Preditory" employers, who care not one French fried crap about anything but undercutting industry standard labor rates, per any given industry, simply because they can. If I had a nickel for every time I personally heard:"Screw 'em. If they don't like it, we'll just get a few more Temps", I'd need never work again!

You can espouse whatever you'd like regarding this, but I'm here to tell you from personal experience that these facts are true.

Will & does their market share suffer? Sure. But honestly, so long as the economy sucks, & people are forced through necessity to take what is readily available, in order to provide the bare minimum for their families, with, or preferably in the case of most workers, without any type if governmental assistance, they will continue until at worst they file bankruptcy, & further screw their workers, while sitting back on their profits.

 

and how do you remain competitive in a Republican capitalist country if not with the best jobs and products in the world. If you doubt it try going into business without the best jobs and products in the world and then let us know if you survived.

 

The "official poverty levels" are not based upon actual information on poverty but instead were created by member of Congress to minimize the number of households living in poverty for "reporting" numbers. They never took into account the cost of living but instead only accounted for a limited number of expenditures for the household.

How about this for a real number. A single women with one child increases her "expenditures" by about $25,000/yr just to provide for the additional costs relate to supporting the child. This doesn't include her "cost of living" that's about $2i,000/yr for a single person across the United States.

For the source of this information refer to the MIT Living Wage Calculator that quantified the actual expenditures for household of different sized by individual counties in all of the United States.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

 

Just because some believe today's economy is not great does not change the fact that all of us make 100% the decision where we work and how much we are compensated. If we do not like our situation, we must change something to get a better outcome...we are the only ones who can do the changing!

What do you believe is a well-paying job? $50K...$75K...$100K?

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you on labor costs 'vary widely' quarter to quarter. A worker who is earning $25/hour in 2016 will probably earn $25K + 2-3% in 2017. Labor costs are actually quite stable.

What you are not getting is 'temps' are an option for the employer. But hiring temps comes with potential issues so they won't do this unless they are forced. Full-time employees are competing with temps in certain situations. Each employer decides how they wish to acquire labor but it's up to the employee to accept or not employment.

Most companies are not rich in profits! Most companies spend time trying to remaining competitive and profitable.

Workers need to assess their work situation and decide what they need to do in order to be satisfied in life. IMO a worker can never force a company or the government to solve their problems for them. Therefore, it is 100% up to the employee to make decisions that provides what they need.

 

You can go to extremes if you wish but you have left reality if you believe every business must have the 'best jobs and products in the world'. How many cell phone manufacturers do you think there are...do you believe all of them have the 'best'? ALL a company must do is remain competitive in their respective market...

 

So your imaginary lady earning $20K suddenly takes on a kid which will cost her another $25K per year...what do you believe are her options to suddenly obtain another $25K in income?

 

yes and competitive often means 2-3 competitors in the entire market with most of the market share. Its a very very high standard with 10,000 companies not meeting the standard each month and going bankrupt just in the USA. The only way to insure survival to to constantly innovate ahead of the competition. If it was easy to remain competitive all Americans would start companies and get rich; in fact almost nobody has the skills and ability to meet the high standards. Capitalism is pure genius in the way it thus improves our standard of living at the highest possible rate. Consumers watch the competitive carnage to find the products that please them, and then buy from the survivors. Now do you understand?

 

With a rational minimum wage law she would already have the income necessary.

A rational minimum wage law is based upon quantification (facts) and not subjective opinion.

The median household size of 2.54 people that would logically rounded off to two adults and one child.
The minimum-mandatory expenditures for two adults (one working) and a child is roughly $46,000/yr (based upon where I live - Yavapai County, Arizona).

The Minimum Wage based upon the above criteria would be $22.11/hr and that would be enough for her to support herself and the child.

We can also note that objections to this minimum wage are based upon subjective opinion that can be disproven because a business plan for any enterprise can be created that will support a minimum wage of $22.11/hr. Only people that don't know how to create a business plan for a successful enterprise express a subjective opinion objecting to a minimum wage based upon the actual cost of living in the United States and unwittingly by objecting they're advocates for government welfare programs.

Either support this minimum wage or provide government welfare assistance to make up for the shortfall in income. That's the actual choice.

 

I understand that you cannot accept or fathom the comment I made..."ALL a company must do is remain competitive in their respective market..."

 

How would you propose forcing the private sector to adopt a minimum wage of $22.11/hour?

Do you agree if you force a $22.11/hour MW that all other wages must be increased by an equitable amount?

You're calling my comments 'subjective' with a dash of ignorance, but I'm a business owner, a farmer, who hires employees, and I can attest that labor costs are my single biggest expense. Since I cannot charge more for my products, forcing a $22.11/hour MW, will increase my labor costs by about 35%, and all of this must come out of whatever profits I 'might' earn. Let's assume for a nanosecond this was even feasible...it would leave me with no profits to expand, replace equipment, or have cash for those down times...

 

Then your average worker's pay is about $16/hour. How do you feel about the minimum wage being raised to $12/hour?

 

It requires a phase implementation of any substantial increase in the minimum wage to allow enterprise to adjust to the increased costs of operation. This is true for any significant increase in any operating cost to an enterprise.

Of course we can also lay the blame for any difficulties that enterprises face in accommodating what would be a huge increase in the federal minimum mandatory minimum wage at the doorstep of the Republican Party that has historically opposed increase in the minimum wage but then that's no surprising because this increase is literally based upon the Natural Right "Of Property" for the person to receive the compensation necessary for their support and comfort established by their labor (John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt ) because Republicans oppose the Natural Rights of the Person.

Some yes, others no. A person earning $50 or $60 per hour wouldn't require any adjustment at all to their wages. A person making $25 while lower wage employees are receiving an increase from $7.25 to $22.11 arguably would. A general rule of thumb in manufacturing where my experience lies is that the person above a lower grade person typically earns 10%-15% more so it depends upon how many layers above the lowest level compensation worker is as to how much the next higher level would receive as an increase if they deserve an increase at all.

What we'd likely see is a "compression" of the wage scale levels to some degree where currently there can be large gaps in the current wage scales.

So no not all wages would be increased and no wage increases would be necessary for any enterprise with wage scales above the new federal minimum wage.

The reason you can't charge more is because you would be at a competitive disadvantage with other enterprises that pay the same or less than you. Because the minimum wage is applied across the board to all enterprises it does not create an advantage or disadvantage for any enterprise.

Of course an enterprise must earn a profit and the business plan defines how that is to be accomplished. As a business owner you would also be aware of the fact that while the increase in the costs of operation, regardless of what causes the increase, must be factored into the business plan but how the business plan accommodates the increase in costs can be done in many ways. Improving the efficiency of operations to reduce other costs, improving customer service to increase gross revenue, improving product quality, or by increasing the price of the goods/services being sold but increasing the price is arguably the last thing a business owner wants to do. The business owner is going to look at all options and the preferred option is to increase the gross revenue of the enterprise while the least favorably solution is raising the prices that can reduce sales and gross revenue. Each business owner is going to have to figure out how best to accommodate any increase in costs, regardless of the source of the increase although the amount of the increase can drive significant changes affecting many of the business operations, but competent business owners do that all of the time.

I have faith in competent business owners while at the same time I'm unwilling to accommodate incompetence in a business owner. If the business owner can't figure out how to best revise their business operations and business plan to accommodate the increase in cost then they probably shouldn't be in business to begin with.

PS - If you know how a business plan works you also know that "profit" is the percentage of the gross revenue after all of the expenditures are accommodated for in the business plan. The increase in the minimum wage, assuming it increases the costs (i.e. cost saving cannot offset it), then it must be accommodated for by increasing the gross revenue by the business and that results in more dollars in profit for the business owner. That's just simple math.

 

why not just increase everyone's wage at gunpoint so everyone can have a higher and higher standard of living??

 

Because that's not supported by the Natural Right "Of Property" that only requires that, as a minimum, the labor of the person provides for their minimum support and comfort. We're addressing the "minimum wage" based upon the "minimum" compensation for labor.

The maximum compensation based upon the Natural Right "Of Property" is only limited by how much money a person can actually use for their support and comfort but we're not addressing that or "socialism" where the wealth created is divided "equally" between the people or based upon their contribution.

Compensation below the "minimum" necessary for support and comfort is the violation of a Natural Right "Of Property" the Person and if it takes the point of a gun to protect our natural rights then it's the violators of the natural right (i.e. the employers) that are responsible and not the government protecting the natural right. Blame the employers, not the government. We need only remember what John Locke said (paraphrased), "Liberty does not imply license" and just because employers had the "liberty" to under-compensate their workers based upon the law it never implied that they had the right to violate the Right of Property of their employees.

 

our subject is not whether it is supported but whether giving everyone a huge wage increase would improve everyone's standard of living. Do you understand?

 

Would likely see a sharp decline in entitlement spending, & the related need for related tax revenue generation needed to support that spending tho.

EDIT: That tax revenue could go towards paying back Social Security, & Vet's benefits...

 

The thread is on the Minimum Wage so your "subject" is off-topic to the discussion and it doesn't warrant an answer. If you create a thread on improving everyone's standard of living then how to accomplish that does warrant discussion.

 

right; so why not give everyone a huge minimum wage increase so everyone can experience a huge increase in their standard of living????????

 

It's not feasible to implement one lump sum at once. Moderate increments allow for the increase to be tolerated by employers.

 

who cares if they tolerate it??? We care about everyone getting a huge boost in pay so their standard of living goes way up. Now do you understand?

 

Their standard of living will crash, should a huge increase be implemented right out the gate, & employers can't adjust, forcing them to layoff more workers, freeze new hires, &/or their own investments in their businesses, &/or, then needing to possibly close outright.