[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Because, generally, they are.

Who asked you for your two deflated American cents worth?! Besides, siding with the Mouldy legate from the wrong coast doesn't look good on your CV.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Because, generally, they are.

You get to screw the, errr you get the pooch!!!

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

You Moore-On!!!



BTW--if basic economic fact is "right wing" then the "left wing" position is what?

Left wing policy is to tax the rich (anybody making more money than me) to within an inch of their lives then living off government tax dollars!

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by pyritechips

Who asked you for your two deflated American cents worth?! Besides, siding with the Mouldy legate from the wrong coast doesn't look good on your CV.

So when I agree with you, which I have, what is that? The easy answer from you would be "smart" and the answer from Mulder would be "deranged".

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Farmgirl22

... I do imagine that there are other methods that company A in your example could use, but they don't seem to. Financial managers try to determine different methods to save money, but it's more to make profit than to figure out ways to pay their employees more. What I was meaning that if the government wanted to revamp the MW setup so that didn't affect the ending result so much was to figure out a way to enforce a rule about preventing the ending price to go up--which I also mentioned would have other difficult implications such as possibly sending more work overseas, and it would also have a sort of a "cap" type effect as well--which opens up another set of problems.

I guess, in short, what I'm saying is that I don't think that the minimum wage thing helps anyone, and there's really no way to make it beneficial to the people that it's supposed to help. So was my answer wordy enough?

Your answers were fine.

You don't think MW helps anyone ... well as someone pointed out there has to be some lower limit so that it's illegal to pay slave wages. Beyond that, if it isn't increased over time it'll just fall back to being <= slave wages.

Plus there are many (probably millions) of low wagers who have to work longer hours (maybe even a second job) to supplement their income. Beyond a certain number of hours per week, productivity will suffer, no? FWIW there are laws in Europe governing maximum working hours -- but of course there are exceptions because a law can't exist unless there's an exception to it.

But for me you hit A nail on the head when you said "make profit". Accepting that a farmer isn't a "regular" company, the primary reason most regular companies exist is to make profit for the owners. When there's an MW hike I imagine the last thing most regular companies look at -- if they look at it at all -- is "can we absorb some of the impact on the unit labour cost by lowering our profit margin ever so slightly?". Banks in the UK charge about £30 every time "one" goes over one's overdraft limit when in reality the actual cost to the bank of that "incident" is a couple of £s (certainly no more than £5).

Ultimately the answer is:

(i) have an MW to ensure slave wages are illegal

(ii) uprate it periodically in line with inflation

(iii) if that isn't enough to live on, give low wagers benefits from a central pot funded by -- can you guess? -- *whispers: taxing the rich more.*

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is:

"Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007; As part of the deal, $4.8 billion worth of tax breaks are going to be given to small business over a 10-year period to offset the wage increase."

Thanks for your comments.

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

Your answers were fine.

You don't think MW helps anyone ... well as someone pointed out there has to be some lower limit so that it's illegal to pay slave wages. Beyond that, if it isn't increased over time it'll just fall back to being <= slave wages.

Plus there are many (probably millions) of low wagers who have to work longer hours (maybe even a second job) to supplement their income. Beyond a certain number of hours per week, productivity will suffer, no? FWIW there are laws in Europe governing maximum working hours -- but of course there are exceptions because a law can't exist unless there's an exception to it.

But for me you hit A nail on the head when you said "make profit". Accepting that a farmer isn't a "regular" company, the primary reason most regular companies exist is to make profit for the owners. When there's an MW hike I imagine the last thing most regular companies look at -- if they look at it at all -- is "can we absorb some of the impact on the unit labour cost by lowering our profit margin ever so slightly?". Banks in the UK charge about £30 every time "one" goes over one's overdraft limit when in reality the actual cost to the bank of that "incident" is a couple of £s (certainly no more than £5).

Ultimately the answer is:

(i) have an MW to ensure slave wages are illegal

(ii) uprate it periodically in line with inflation

(iii) if that isn't enough to live on, give low wagers benefits from a central pot funded by -- can you guess? -- *whispers: taxing the rich more.*

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is:

"Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007; As part of the deal, $4.8 billion worth of tax breaks are going to be given to small business over a 10-year period to offset the wage increase."

Thanks for your comments.

Your welcome!

I thought that the purpose of unions was to prevent slave wages and overworking employees? Why do we need two programs to do the same job? (Again, no offense, I'm just curious.) I am nearly positive that the UK has unions as well (here they overstep their boundaries a lot, do they there?)

As for the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007--I haven't heard anything about it yet, but from my own personal experiences with ANY government program, it's probably not a big money saver for the small business because it would have so many qualifications, stipulations, and time consuming forms (time is money!) that it would probably be cheaper and easier to avoid it altogether. Those are just my personal experiences with government programs talking, does anyone really know anything about it?

Originally Posted by bomb #21

*whispers: taxing the rich more*

I snickered...

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Farmgirl

Your welcome!

I thought that the purpose of unions was to prevent slave wages and overworking employees? Why do we need two programs to do the same job? (Again, no offense, I'm just curious.) I am nearly positive that the UK has unions as well (here they overstep their boundaries a lot, do they there?)

As for the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007--I haven't heard anything about it yet, but from my own personal experiences with ANY government program, it's probably not a big money saver for the small business because it would have so many qualifications, stipulations, and time consuming forms (time is money!) that it would probably be cheaper and easier to avoid it altogether. Those are just my personal experiences with government programs talking, does anyone really know anything about it?

2 programs to do the same job -- Governments can make policies but they can't be in all workplaces; someone has to be the eyes and ears. UK Unions aren't what they used to be, overstepping boundaries is a rarity these days -- with the possible exception of Branches (locals, I think you call them) in the Peoples' Republic of Liverpool.

I suspect you're right about $4.8 billion worth of tax breaks not being a big money saver, over 10 years it's probably about as much use as $4.80 ; but at least it shows that there must be some politicians who aren't oblivious to "MW hike = increased unit labour costs". Reassuring, eh?

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

2 programs to do the same job -- Governments can make policies but they can't be in all workplaces; someone has to be the eyes and ears. UK Unions aren't what they used to be, overstepping boundaries is a rarity these days -- with the possible exception of Branches (locals, I think you call them) in the Peoples' Republic of Liverpool.

I suspect you're right about $4.8 billion worth of tax breaks not being a big money saver, over 10 years it's probably about as much use as $4.80 ; but at least it shows that there must be some politicians who aren't oblivious to "MW hike = increased unit labour costs". Reassuring, eh?

I thought that unions had the ability to be everywhere--like it was an option to join one at any workplace that you were at? In that case, wouldn't the union actually be more effective than a government set wage? Because the unions were there, in their face?

Another thought on the "slave wages"....my hubby and I have this discussion often (especially when he worked for the tightwads we call farmer's cooperatives) about essentially "getting what you pay for". Let's face it, no one that is going to be good at a job and has the motivation to do it right is going to be interested in a job that doesn't pay well. Eliminating the minimum wage isn't likely going to affect wages at all--if we want to keep it as a formality, that would be fine (as long as it was well under the "standard of living") if it would help people sleep better at night. Seriously though, there are so many opportunities out there that if someone wasn't willing to pay a decent wage and provide decent conditions (and the union failed to make it better), then those people could easily take on a different job. Companies that don't pay well and have poor conditions get the quality of workers that they "pay" for--maybe we should campaign a wake-up call about only getting what you pay for. Money is a motivator, job conditions are motivators, etc. etc. On the farm we realized that and did without so that we could maintain good help (they made over 2x what we did!)...I can imagine it would be similar everywhere.

[pyritechips]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

So when I agree with you, which I have, what is that? The easy answer from you would be "smart" and the answer from Mulder would be "deranged".

Well, yoiu got the bolded part of your statement right!

[bomb #21]

Originally Posted by Farmgirl

I thought that unions had the ability to be everywhere--like it was an option to join one at any workplace that you were at? In that case, wouldn't the union actually be more effective than a government set wage? Because the unions were there, in their face?

It'll be different in the States than in the UK. Here, Unions are present in most, if not all, major industries. But at the last count there were "5.4 million employees working for establishments with less than 19 staff" while Union recognition laws did not extend to cover workplaces employing 21 people or less.

Originally Posted by FG

Another thought on the "slave wages"....my hubby and I have this discussion often (especially when he worked for the tightwads we call farmer's cooperatives) about essentially "getting what you pay for". Let's face it, no one that is going to be good at a job and has the motivation to do it right is going to be interested in a job that doesn't pay well ...

Aha, interesting point. FWIW, I've known a few people over time go from well-paid, well-respected jobs to low-paid "menial" jobs simply because they'd had a gut-full of the stress & just wanted to clock on, effectively switch off, do the work, then clock off. But they're very much the exception, so generally speaking I'd agree with you.

[Farmgirl22]

Originally Posted by bomb #21

It'll be different in the States than in the UK. Here, Unions are present in most, if not all, major industries. But at the last count there were "5.4 million employees working for establishments with less than 19 staff" while Union recognition laws did not extend to cover workplaces employing 21 people or less.



Aha, interesting point. FWIW, I've known a few people over time go from well-paid, well-respected jobs to low-paid "menial" jobs simply because they'd had a gut-full of the stress & just wanted to clock on, effectively switch off, do the work, then clock off. But they're very much the exception, so generally speaking I'd agree with you.

I actually know a couple of people who have taken on lower-paying jobs than they previously had--generally to do the "baby steps" towards retirement. They weren't sure that they wanted to up and quit altogether, and didn't really need the money, but couldn't stand sitting at home all day after being used to having a job....BUT, like you said, there aren't many people that do this sort of thing, and it's generally less because they "need" the money, and more because they "need" something to keep them from getting bored.

I really wouldn't count those people as the ones who would be affected by the MW thing anyway--because they generally aren't dependent upon the wages offered by their job at that point.

Regarding your first paragraph...I will admit that I don't know what our union laws entail--although it does seem that I recall us having something similar to what you mentioned with the minimum number of employees and not having union influence if they are under that amount. However, I still feel that unions would be more effective than a MW overall, and if that means letting them inch into smaller companies (having more than say, 3 non-related [kin] employees) then I think it would STILL be a better plan than continuing to raise the MW regularly. If we wanted to knock back the MW a couple of dollars to get it back down to a manageable level, where it doesn't directly affect standard of living, (for those strongly against dropping it altogether) and then decrease the minimum number of employees for union involvement, then I think the whole program would run much more smoothly and be more effective and efficient. Just my 2 cents...