I actually would probably consider paying a worker above their reservation wage if it meant less turnover, even for an unskilled position. Someone people might value that more. It would depend on the trade offs and their worth.
I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that the minimum wage act was originally intended to provide people with subsistence wages. I don't agree with a minimum wage but if it's going to be enforced it should keep up with inflation.
Lower turnover is a great example of value because you aren't constantly training someone which is usually less productive. I think most good employers either understand this or figure it out the hard way.
Raising minimum wage just because to me is like using twigs to put out a campfire.
I actually would probably consider paying a worker above their reservation wage if it meant less turnover, even for an unskilled position. Someone people might value that more. It would depend on the trade offs and their worth.
I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that the minimum wage act was originally intended to provide people with subsistence wages. I don't agree with a minimum wage but if it's going to be enforced it should keep up with inflation.
Lower turnover is a great example of value because you aren't constantly training someone which is usually less productive. I think most good employers either understand this or figure it out the hard way.
Raising minimum wage just because to me is like using twigs to put out a campfire.
Didn't intentionally put my post in caps. I'm copying and pasting from word because of the Malware issue and that is what happened.
So the basis for your argument is anecdotal evidence about twenty something girls who are on welfare and work at Rite Aid.
If you were in college and the professor told you to hand in a one page argument against the rising minimum wage, would you ever, in a million years, hand in the OP and your subsequent quoted post?
If not, why are you shooting from the hip here with stories and platitudes when you are supposed to be defending a stance?
I wouldn't use the example I used in a paper about "Why I'm against raising the minimum wage" but I would use it in a paper on "Why people make minimum wage." As I've said a thousand times before, if you are an adult making minimum wage it's because you've bounced around from job to job. Every time you start a new job you are going to start from the bottom. If you've been working at McDonalds, Wendy's, etc for any modest period of time you are not making minimum wage.
Didn't intentionally put my post in caps. I'm copying and pasting from word because of the Malware issue and that is what happened.
So the basis for your argument is anecdotal evidence about twenty something girls who are on welfare and work at Rite Aid.
If you were in college and the professor told you to hand in a one page argument against the rising minimum wage, would you ever, in a million years, hand in the OP and your subsequent quoted post?
If not, why are you shooting from the hip here with stories and platitudes when you are supposed to be defending a stance?
I wouldn't use the example I used in a paper about "Why I'm against raising the minimum wage" but I would use it in a paper on "Why people make minimum wage." As I've said a thousand times before, if you are an adult making minimum wage it's because you've bounced around from job to job. Every time you start a new job you are going to start from the bottom. If you've been working at McDonalds, Wendy's, etc for any modest period of time you are not making minimum wage.
Is this your opinion or this actually included in minimum wage legislature?
I'm not in favor of a minimum wage. However, and this might seem contradictory, I do believe that people who work 40+ hours per week should be able to meet the minimum standards of living.
Sorry. Just seeing this.
Yes. And a tacit and implied yes, I think. It is not really a bad thing. But I think people sincerely, yearn for the less privileged to have the better things in life. A good job, a decent wage, a nice place to live, a nice car(s), a nice retirement, and extra money to have a few things such as vacations.
The issue is the difference in idealogies to get there.
I get that you would like for a 40+ hour week to provide a minimum standard of living. The issue is that it does. It provides a very, very bare minimum living. It will do that for you. But you have to realize that you will not be living high on the hog at all. You will be ekeing out a living. A very cheap apartment. Maybe rooming or renting a room from someone else. A clunker with no payments at best. And a lot of PB&Js. But I know folks that DO get by on MW.
The issue is what to do to advance? Some say get and education or skill and improve your lot; some say just give you more for a minial task that even a 12-year-old could do. Etc., etc.
Is this your opinion or this actually included in minimum wage legislature?
I'm not in favor of a minimum wage. However, and this might seem contradictory, I do believe that people who work 40+ hours per week should be able to meet the minimum standards of living.
Sorry. Just seeing this.
Yes. And a tacit and implied yes, I think. It is not really a bad thing. But I think people sincerely, yearn for the less privileged to have the better things in life. A good job, a decent wage, a nice place to live, a nice car(s), a nice retirement, and extra money to have a few things such as vacations.
The issue is the difference in idealogies to get there.
I get that you would like for a 40+ hour week to provide a minimum standard of living. The issue is that it does. It provides a very, very bare minimum living. It will do that for you. But you have to realize that you will not be living high on the hog at all. You will be ekeing out a living. A very cheap apartment. Maybe rooming or renting a room from someone else. A clunker with no payments at best. And a lot of PB&Js. But I know folks that DO get by on MW.
The issue is what to do to advance? Some say get and education or skill and improve your lot; some say just give you more for a minial task that even a 12-year-old could do. Etc., etc.
Yes. And a tacit and implied yes, I think. It is not really a bad thing. But I think people sincerely, yearn for the less privileged to have the better things in life. A good job, a decent wage, a nice place to live, a nice car(s), a nice retirement, and extra money to have a few things such as vacations.
The issue is the difference in idealogies to get there.
I get that you would like for a 40+ hour week to provide a minimum standard of living. The issue is that it does. It provides a very, very bare minimum living. It will do that for you. But you have to realize that you will not be living high on the hog at all. You will be ekeing out a living. A very cheap apartment. Maybe rooming or renting a room from someone else. A clunker with no payments at best. And a lot of PB&Js. But I know folks that DO get by on MW.
The issue is what to do to advance? Some say get and education or skill and improve your lot; some say just give you more for a minial task that even a 12-year-old could do. Etc., etc.
Tacit and implied yes to what? It being your opinion or it being found in the wording of the law?
I only ask because people keep saying it's not intended to provide a living wage as if it's included in the law. If it is, can you please link it?
Yes. And a tacit and implied yes, I think. It is not really a bad thing. But I think people sincerely, yearn for the less privileged to have the better things in life. A good job, a decent wage, a nice place to live, a nice car(s), a nice retirement, and extra money to have a few things such as vacations.
The issue is the difference in idealogies to get there.
I get that you would like for a 40+ hour week to provide a minimum standard of living. The issue is that it does. It provides a very, very bare minimum living. It will do that for you. But you have to realize that you will not be living high on the hog at all. You will be ekeing out a living. A very cheap apartment. Maybe rooming or renting a room from someone else. A clunker with no payments at best. And a lot of PB&Js. But I know folks that DO get by on MW.
The issue is what to do to advance? Some say get and education or skill and improve your lot; some say just give you more for a minial task that even a 12-year-old could do. Etc., etc.
Tacit and implied yes to what? It being your opinion or it being found in the wording of the law?
I only ask because people keep saying it's not intended to provide a living wage as if it's included in the law. If it is, can you please link it?
The idea is implied is what I am saying and consequentially the laws reflect this. This is from WC early in century:
It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil [...and...] ultimately produce a fair price. Where... you have a powerful organisation on both sides... there you have a healthy bargaining.... But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst.... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
The idea is implied is what I am saying and consequentially the laws reflect this. This is from WC early in century:
It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty's subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions. It was formerly supposed that the working of the laws of supply and demand would naturally regulate or eliminate that evil [...and...] ultimately produce a fair price. Where... you have a powerful organisation on both sides... there you have a healthy bargaining.... But where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst.... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
In 1907, the Harvester decision was handed down in Australia. It established a 'living wage' for a man, his wife and two children to "live in frugal comfort"
In 1907, the Harvester decision was handed down in Australia. It established a 'living wage' for a man, his wife and two children to "live in frugal comfort"
So my point is the idea behind it is there. Of course you get into the debate of living wage vs minimum wage and that sort of thing. Then you have the level of poverty and inflation and those sorts of things.
But the overriding theme is for people to earn what is deemed a living wage for their work.
So my point is the idea behind it is there. Of course you get into the debate of living wage vs minimum wage and that sort of thing. Then you have the level of poverty and inflation and those sorts of things.
But the overriding theme is for people to earn what is deemed a living wage for their work.
Interestingly enough most folks do not realize the basis for a lot of this stems from initially a MAXIMUM wage limit. Centuries ago in England there was a time when they had a shortage of labor and serfdom and whatnot. The folks that ran the farms and industries at that time had issue where they were running up the prices they paid to get and retain laborers. The King then decreed the maximum that could be paid out to laborers at that time.
There are also in our history afterwards situations for minimum apprenticeship pay, minimum for women's pay etc etc
Because women and young men at that time were not necessarily or usually head-of-households --- it was decided that they were not needed to be paid as much as a man that would have to provide for himself AND a family.
So, you can see the idea behind it in more than one area. They wanted to provide a minimum needed for THAT person or HIS family. But once it was also decided to NOT pay more than was necessary to have a decent living.
It is interesting in a free market to look at the extremes during difficult times.
And when you couple it with people's fee will and their desire/lack of desire to succeed---then you can see where there are problems with it today.
But there are many, many books and articles that present this much more clearly if you get that interested in it.
Interestingly enough most folks do not realize the basis for a lot of this stems from initially a MAXIMUM wage limit. Centuries ago in England there was a time when they had a shortage of labor and serfdom and whatnot. The folks that ran the farms and industries at that time had issue where they were running up the prices they paid to get and retain laborers. The King then decreed the maximum that could be paid out to laborers at that time.
There are also in our history afterwards situations for minimum apprenticeship pay, minimum for women's pay etc etc
Because women and young men at that time were not necessarily or usually head-of-households --- it was decided that they were not needed to be paid as much as a man that would have to provide for himself AND a family.
So, you can see the idea behind it in more than one area. They wanted to provide a minimum needed for THAT person or HIS family. But once it was also decided to NOT pay more than was necessary to have a decent living.
It is interesting in a free market to look at the extremes during difficult times.
And when you couple it with people's fee will and their desire/lack of desire to succeed---then you can see where there are problems with it today.
But there are many, many books and articles that present this much more clearly if you get that interested in it.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.