15 bucks an hour

[dogman_1234]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/seattle_begins_push_for_15_min.html

Let us see how this will turn out.

 

[markwp]

The current minimum wage in Oregon is $8.95. If a person works full time, his annual income would be ~$18,000. The poverty line for a single person household is $11,490. But if you add in a spouse (non-working, stay at home mom/dad) and one child, the level is $19,530. Minimum wage varies by state, but the federal minimum is $7.25 under FSLA. In the same scenario as above, the wage earner would be at $14,500 which is BELOW the poverty line for a 2 person household.

Touchy subject all around, and especially divisive between the two major political parties.

 

[wanamingo]

We could ask some of nice Australians how they are doing. I imagine the rule of law is crumbling, infrastructure dissolving, people without the will to move up the corporate social ladder, fading morals.... In essence probably something a la Mad Max.
.
Their min wage is something like 16.50$ American.

Im down for a min wage increase. Maybe not so dramatic as jumping to 15$ / hr but there does need to be an increase. Im sorry if some people are going to be butt hurt about the new bag boy making as much as you and you've been bagging for 2 years.

 

[riser]

Raising the minimum has proven to be stupid. The gov't is causing enough inflation already, doing this will impact the bottom line for everyone - especially the middle class. Middle class people are making $20-$35/hour right now.. bumping that up, you might as well remove the middle class completely have the upper and lower classes.

Raising the rates that high will have a direct impact on the products the lower/middle class buys. They'll be forced to spend more to get less; just because minimum wage goes up doesn't mean wages across the board goes up. The only people who are unaffected by this are the wealthy. They're not going to buy more; they're not going to be affected by it. But the middle class will suffer.

Giving people more who haven't done anything to earn it. That's the new mentality. We need them to want to work to become more successful instead of forcing them to get paid more.

Australia is a poor example, as it is an island, produces little, and the population is relatively small.

 

[Saga Lout]

The UK has had a minimum wage for many years but its effect has lessened recently when we learnt from the News that several million people are now employed on so-called zero hours contracts. They aren't guaranteed any work at all in a given wage period but can sometimes work anywhere between sixteen and forty hours, particularly in the elder care sector. Imagine the impact the inconsistency of that would have on an already low family .

This, big business tells us, is all for the employees' own good and they're lucky to be employed at all. The Government doesn't mind it because it artificially dropped the unemployment figures at a time when the interest rate situation depended on those figures looking good - about all they did do!

Sometimes I'm glad I'm nearly 67 and still work for myself as I have since 1979 - I never felt I could trust anyone else with something so important as my livelihood.

 

[riser]

A consulted employee: Paid by the hours worked, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. My previous company wanted to do that with me. Put me on as an employee and only pay me when consulted. I turned it down.

The US's largest employer is no longer Walmart, but a Temp Agency. That shows the confidence the country has in the economy.

 

[chunkymonster]

Washington is one of 10 States proposing an increase of the minimum wage, even Obama and the Democrats have suggested raising the national minimum wage. As a result, the debates rage on both sides as to whether increasing the wage would or would not help the economy, help or hurt the employment roles, increase bottom line costs to businesses, and etc ad nauseam. But while pundits and armchair economists bicker back and forth whether the supposed benefits or handicaps would help recipients and the nation as a whole, the debate itself is the typical distraction offered up by complicit media to obscure the true intent and goal of raising the minimum wage. The real issue that should be discussed is the continuation by Progressives and Liberals of the Cloward-Piven strategy with the ultimate goal of implementing a national system of guaranteed income.

Consider the Cato Institute's follow up study to their 1995 study "The Work vs Welfare Trade-Off: 2013". Of particular interest are the minimum wage dollar amount equivalents by State (Table 3, Page 8) that would be required to provide the progressive/liberal equivalent of a "living wage". At number one on the list is Hawaii, which would need to have a whopping $29.13 per hour as their minimum wage in order to disincentive would-be workers from taking some form public assistance.

If one looks at this as an hourly wage, it is easy to see that welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 33 states—in many cases, significantly more. In fact, in a dozen states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than $15 per hour. If one compares the wage-equivalent value of welfare to median work-related income (as shown in Table 4), welfare actually pays better in eight states, and nearly as well in numerous other states. Indeed, in 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first-year wage for a teacher. In 39 states it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states, a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer.

America has a population of 316 million with only 114 million tax payers and 161 million people receiving some form of government benefit paid for by the tax payers. That's means 36% of the total population are paying for all the government assistance being used by 49% of the total population. The national debt is at $17 Trillion, the number of people living below the poverty line is at an all time high, and economic growth is an anemic 1.7% per year, and real unemployment is about 15%. However, it is because of America's weak economy, high unemployment, and regional socio-economic diversity that will drive the Statist call to continue policies that grow the government until there is no other solution but to enact a national system of guaranteed income. Ironically, it is the same progressive centralized planning that put us in this exact situation.

The goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy is to create a financial crisis by overloading the public welfare system in order to replace the welfare system with a national system of a guaranteed annual income. I say, we are facing such a crisis and arguing over the benefits or handicaps of raising the minimum wage does nothing but to further the progressive/liberal agenda.

 

[dogman_1234]

So, does that mean those who work at jobs that are higher than min wage are hurting the economy? Shoudl a forklift driver be paid 7.25 an hour to save the economy form destruction? Should techical workers be paid 9.19 in Washington for a skill they learned to contribute to the economy?

I agree 15 bucks is outrageous, but we will see how it goes in Seattle.

 

[dogman_1234]

We could ask some of nice Australians how they are doing. I imagine the rule of law is crumbling, infrastructure dissolving, people without the will to move up the corporate social ladder, fading morals.... In essence probably something a la Mad Max.
.
Their min wage is something like 16.50$ American.

Im down for a min wage increase. Maybe not so dramatic as jumping to 15$ / hr but there does need to be an increase. Im sorry if some people are going to be butt hurt about the new bag boy making as much as you and you've been bagging for 2 years.

Coming from someone who has never had to make payroll in his life. In case you don't know, that means making sure everyone who works for you gets paid before you do.

Forgive me if I sound stupid; but, I don't quite understand what you mean by not 'had to make payroll'. Could you explain what your situation is that forces you to no meet such fiduciary reward?

Thank You.

 

[Saga Lout]

When you run a small business, "making payroll" means you pay the people who work for you first. This is to keep them happy so they will come back tomorrow and do a good job all over again. This is typically a challenge of balancing wages for work done versus what a person is worth. i.e. if they call in sick to work twice in one week with a 'spider bite', do you give this person a raise or offer them barely enough to get the work done?

It also means doing their job for them - or paying someone else to do it - whenever they take a holiday or a crafty day off for a football match, time off to to have/father/conceive a child and be ready to step in at your own expense when for whatever reason, your staff decide not to bother to work. Your own holidays cost you double because your work is still there when you return and you don't even want to calculate your own hourly rate in case it turns out to be lower than the kid who comes in two hours a week to sweep the storeroom.

@chunkmaster - is it at all possible some of your 161 million are children being totally supported by some of the 114? Wonderful things,figures - they can do whatever you want them to.

 

[dogman_1234]

So, am I wrong for coming in to work early, doing what I am aksed and getting paid 9.19 per hour doing my job?

 

[musical marv]

The current minimum wage in Oregon is $8.95. If a person works full time, his annual income would be ~$18,000. The poverty line for a single person household is $11,490. But if you add in a spouse (non-working, stay at home mom/dad) and one child, the level is $19,530. Minimum wage varies by state, but the federal minimum is $7.25 under FSLA. In the same scenario as above, the wage earner would be at $14,500 which is BELOW the poverty line for a 2 person household.

Touchy subject all around, and especially divisive between the two major political parties.

Pathetic indeed. Minimum wage should be at least 12 bucks per hour.

 

[dogman_1234]

The current minimum wage in Oregon is $8.95. If a person works full time, his annual income would be ~$18,000. The poverty line for a single person household is $11,490. But if you add in a spouse (non-working, stay at home mom/dad) and one child, the level is $19,530. Minimum wage varies by state, but the federal minimum is $7.25 under FSLA. In the same scenario as above, the wage earner would be at $14,500 which is BELOW the poverty line for a 2 person household.

Touchy subject all around, and especially divisive between the two major political parties.

Pathetic indeed. Minimum wage should be at least 12 bucks per hour.

Why do you suppose?

 

[wanamingo]

Just keep the min wage in line with inflation.... Simple. Remember when Ford paid his employees enough to buy his products? lol

As for making payroll, if your business hinges on paying 10 or fewer people an extra 1-3$ an hour you are having far worse problems than the min wage.

I was trying to summon Rey to get his opinion but by the powers of Tom I summon GROPOUCE! The French also have a very high min wage. Or if any of you guys are Danish, or a nordic country I would love to hear how the min wage affects you.

 

[wanamingo]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/seattle_begins_push_for_15_min.html

Seattle already has the highest min wage in the country at 9.19 /hr they still want to bump it up.

 

[riser]

The higher the minimum wage, the higher the minimum prices on goods. It is a direct relationship.Ford still pays their employees enough to afford almost all of their vehicle lineups. This is basic economics, micro-economics. If you pay someone $15/hour, how many widgets do you need to produce and sell in order to stay afloat?

If you pay someone $9 a hour, 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, to produce a $5 widget that costs you $2 in material, how many widgets must you produce and sell just to break even?

$9x40 = $360 (benefits excluded, or other fees, etc.)
At $360/wk, you need to sell at least 120 widgets a week to account for the break even point. That's 3 widgets an hour. That's 120 widgets sold a week at $5.
120 widgets at $5 = $600 minus material cost of $2/widget ($240), $360.

For the employer, they have historical data to say they sell 150 widgets a week at $5. If they sold them for $4, demand might go up. If they sold them for $6, demand might go down. Again, this is per single employee.

If you pay the employee $15/hour minimum, that's a $6/hour increase the employer has to account for. They were selling 150 widgets a week, per employee, and raking in $150 profit a week.
At $15/hour per week, that's $600/week. They were only making $600 a week at $5/widget. Now, we assume that the company is producing at a reasonable rate - their best production rate to maximize profit.

So, $5 widget doesn't cut it anymore. Employees can't consistently produce more than 3 widgets/hour. Employees are paid bare minimum, costs are as low as they can go.. the only option left is to raise the price of the product.

$6/widget selling 130/week (we assume a natural drop because of the increase in price) is $780/week, leaving a $180/profit. They were maintaining $150, so that's where they want to stay.
$7/widget selling 100/week, again demand drops as price goes up, is $700/week. Only a $100 profit. Need it to be $150 - that is what the business was running before and paying operating costs, etc.
If it was $7 and selling 120 a week, that's $840/week, a $140 profit assuming demand remains constant.

The employer option is to raise the product's price and hope demand stays the same. If demand drops, they'll have to increase prices again to maintain previous profit per item.

Then move into the operating factors.

If they were producing 150 a week but price increase means they're only selling 100/widgets a week per employee, that means if they had 4 employees, one would be laid off. 4 employees were producing 600/widgets a week. Demand drops to 520/week at $6, one employee can be let go.

Demand drops because the price goes up, supply goes up temporarily and an employee is laid off citing decline in sales.

 

[riser]

It will be beneficial for Seattle, an isolated area, to raise minimum wage prices. It would artificially increase properly value in the area because their is more money in the economy in that area, meaning prices will go up because demand will increase. Now, if other places raise their minimum wages, everything is even again. Raising the local minimum wage is one way of artificially increasing values in the area if you look at property/rent costs. So it could have a positive impact since. Look at NYC, McD's pays $18/hour starting because employees need to be able to pay the high rent there. Great, except the prices in NYC are artificially high.

 

[riser]

August 29th is supposed to be the national fast food strike.. they want everyone to be paid $15/hour!! My buddy owns 2 Tim Horton's and he makes $50k a year owning those.. not really a lot of money. He'll go out of business if he has to pay more.. Putting these small business owners out of business making calls like this.

 

[amdfangirl]

We could ask some of nice Australians how they are doing. I imagine the rule of law is crumbling, infrastructure dissolving, people without the will to move up the corporate social ladder, fading morals.... In essence probably something a la Mad Max.
.
Their min wage is something like 16.50$ American.

Im down for a min wage increase. Maybe not so dramatic as jumping to 15$ / hr but there does need to be an increase. Im sorry if some people are going to be butt hurt about the new bag boy making as much as you and you've been bagging for 2 years.

Remember when $1 Australian = $.60 US? Value = $9/hour.

That's what minimum wage was established off.

 

[riser]

To compete at a global level. How's it working out now?

 

[Saga Lout]

My buddy owns 2 Tim Horton's and he makes $50k a year owning those.. not really a lot of money. He'll go out of business if he has to pay more.

All power to him for running his own show and for employing people but he's making three times what his employees would make on the minimum wage - assuming $9 an hour - so would you not agree the pain should be spread around a little more equally?

Before anyone jumps up shouting Communist, I can assure you my background and current thinking couldn't be further from there but old(er) age is mellowing me towards a little more equalityand sense of community than we're seeing these days..

 

[chunkymonster]

@chunkmaster - is it at all possible some of your 161 million are children being totally supported by some of the 114? Wonderful things,figures - they can do whatever you want them to.

Certainly some of the 161 million are children being totally supported by the 114. However, the vast majority of those children are being supported by a parent who is part of the 114 paying taxes. Kinda throws off the "think about the children" narrative, huh? Anyway, the demographic breakdown of the 161 million being supported by the 114 million wasn't the point, which I'm sure you understood, but to demonstrate the minority is paying for the majority, i.e.; the Cloward-Piven strategy. Also, the numbers were taken directly from the Dept of Labor Statistics.

My buddy owns 2 Tim Horton's and he makes $50k a year owning those.. not really a lot of money. He'll go out of business if he has to pay more.

All power to him for running his own show and for employing people but he's making three times what his employees would make on the minimum wage - assuming $9 an hour - so would you not agree the pain should be spread around a little more equally?

Before anyone jumps up shouting Communist, I can assure you my background and current thinking couldn't be further from there but old(er) age is mellowing me towards a little more equalityand sense of community than we're seeing these days..

It's the popular narrative to claim that since the business owner makes more money than his workers they are somehow responsible for the livelihood of those workers, but that narrative only feeds into the "millionaires and billionaires" rhetoric of the Occupy Wall Street and Liberal Democrats. The other half of the narrative that is largely forgotten is the fact that the business owner assume 100% of the risk by creating, running, and maintaining that business. So, if you say that the pain should be spread around more equally, then it stands to reason that because the business owner assumes a higher level of risk than the people he employs, he should take a wage commensurate with that level of risk.

 

[riser]

My buddy owns 2 Tim Horton's and he makes $50k a year owning those.. not really a lot of money. He'll go out of business if he has to pay more.

All power to him for running his own show and for employing people but he's making three times what his employees would make on the minimum wage - assuming $9 an hour - so would you not agree the pain should be spread around a little more equally?

Before anyone jumps up shouting Communist, I can assure you my background and current thinking couldn't be further from there but old(er) age is mellowing me towards a little more equalityand sense of community than we're seeing these days..

That's a stupid idea.

He invested $75,000 to start the franchise. He does all the work managing the books, orders, etc. He trains his employees. He pays $9.00 for the average worker, $10/hour for managers.

I asked him once if he did background checks. He said no.. if he did, he wouldn't have any employees.

They pour coffee, make basic sandwiches, and clean. It's his money to lose.. he invested in it, he runs it.. he should see the rewards.

To think otherwise is purely idiotic.


Edit:

Actually, your comment pisses me off because of how outright f'ing stupid it is.

He's taking all the risk, working 70+ hours a week maintaining HIS business. His employees are doing basic work.. for you to even think he should pay them a higher rate for basic labor is absolutely idiotic.

He only makes $50k a year. His business has I think $90k in debt that it's paying on. His overall profit after tax and debt payments is $50k a year. That's chump change.

22 employees. If he paid each $1/hour more and each worked 20 hours a week, that's nearly $23,000 more a year. HE'S ONLY MAKING $50,000. He can't afford it. Demand of the business will not RISE because he pays his employees more. Demand dictates what he can pay.

That's how business works. It isn't about spreading around wealth and thinking everything is great. The more in demand your job is, the more you get paid. The higher the skillset, the more the job pays. It's that simple.

It is BASIC labor and a MINIMUM wage is designed to set the standard for BASIC labor.

Wow Saga.. wow.

 

[amdfangirl]

To compete at a global level. How's it working out now?

Easy, we just hire child labour.

https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national-minimum-wage/pages/default.aspx

How does $6/hour sound?

Given the current exchange rate that's $5.5/hour US.

If we get back to $1AUD = $0.60USD then that's $3.6USD/hour

Now if only I could convince someone to employ me rather than a 15 year old kid...

 

[Guest]

The only reason they want 15 is so they can offset their lost obamacare hours.