Minimum wage.

[Congtyn]

I don't think that is the case, as illustrated by your post. Businesses pay their employees what they have to based on the market supply and demand, not based on what they contribute to the worth of the business.

That's also what I meant. Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.

Employees and their time is worth what the market determines.

[godlyitems]

ahh, the challenge of parenting. Not everyone can afford to send their child to college but they can instill a work ethic. It is an excuse to say that some people are incapable of more than stuffing boxes at a fulfillment center. I do not believe that. Sure, there are some folks who are mentally challenged, yet still in the workplace, and that is understandable but to those who are more interested in beer and cigarette money than paying rent, that is laziness.

Yeah... all of those blue collar workers that are being undercut by automation and technology are just lazy. They could be just like Edison if they worked at it.


You are ignoring reality.

[redandblack]

Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.

What a person is worth is a complex philosophical question -- one not easily answered. I agree that what a person offers, in goods or labor, is worth what someone is willing to give them in exchange for those goods or labor.

[username18333]

I'm not in a sector where I have min wage employees but a fair argument is that if min wage increases by 40%, should I increase wages by 40% of all of my employees? How do I tell them that they are now only worth 3x min wage as opposed to 4x or more? If I compensate for the min wage increase and give a proportionate increase across the board, how do I determine which employee(s) I lay off in order to free up the cash flow to hand out the pay raises?

Your revenue did not increase with the increase in the expendable income of your market?

[godlyitems]

Failing to solve a person's problem for them is not the same as ignoring it. What society can (and should) do is be honest with people. Tell folks if what they're doing now is not very valuable or will likely have no value at all (become obsolete) in the near future.

The reality is if many people do not become more like Edison, if they do not start finding ways to contribute other than running errands and turning wheels, then (according to your prediction) their contributions will become obsolete. Their current contributions will no longer be valued by society. You have not established as a fact that half the population has nothing to offer more valuable than zero.

It is my sincere hope people will listen. If they choose to ignore the problem and hope it goes away... the future will be difficult for them.

Complete nonsense. When a large segment of society has been priced out of the job market, it is society's problem. Because if society's only solution is to tell them to be more like Edison, they are going to tear society down.

And "more valuable than zero" is not enough to live on.

[redandblack]

When a large segment of society has been priced out of the job market, it is society's problem. Because if society's only solution is to tell them to be more like Edison, they are going to tear society down.

'They' are society.

People can attack the windmill, it won't make turning the millstone more valued.

[peterson33]

for me it's all of the above. A developer who allows me to introduce products in less time than other developers is valuable to me.

A salesperson who brings in good numbers is compensated well for their success. Those successful salsepeople then allow me to hire good developers so we can create better products thus making it easier to sell and the cycle continues.

But, that all began with a dream (mine) and risking EVERYTHING and getting the product and market right. If I was wrong, then there would be no salespeople as I was the initial salesperson. There would be no development "team" as I could not initially afford them.

I hold all accountable and don't measure by hours worked. If I make a mistake and hire a person with a poor work ethic, I quickly release them. I owe it to myself, to my shareholders and employees (who also have options) and to my customers.

I can't have price increases to compensate for lazy employees (this isn't the govt). I can't have lost revenue due to lazy employees which then affects the performers.

I'm not in a sector where I have min wage employees but a fair argument is that if min wage increases by 40%, should I increase wages by 40% of all of my employees? How do I tell them that they are now only worth 3x min wage as opposed to 4x or more? If I compensate for the min wage increase and give a proportionate increase across the board, how do I determine which employee(s) I lay off in order to free up the cash flow to hand out the pay raises?

You see, a magic pot of money does not come my way the first day/week/month/quarter/year after a wage increase. I have a finite cash flow and must manage it.

I am positive 100% that retail stores and other min wage type employers have the same concern that a pot of money does not arrive the day/week/month/quarter that min wage increases and that they would need to compensate for the cash flow impact.

So you're saying if you have two equal sales man, and one wants $50k and the other will work for $25k, you're going to hire the $50k one?

If not, what are you trying to say that is different than my post?

[peterson33]

That's also what I meant. Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.

Employees and their time is worth what the market determines.

And that, of course, can be a *lot* different that the value they contribute in creating goods and services.

When there is an oversupply of workers, unless there is some other means of setting price (wages), the market sets their wages lower, and the owners reap costs savings and greater profit.

Which is basically what we've been seeing over the past three decades.

[abasin]

higher minimum wages produces more jobs

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

[ezly]

was it a global economy when he was around? The times change and either you compete, or lose. The same goes for workers. It is up to the individual to make themselves as valuable as possible. The good looking girl gets more guys coming to her as opposed to the 300 pound girl.

That global economy, in reality is a rather simple thing. American MNCs move manufacturing where wages are cents on the dollar. They then are allowed full tariff free access to the largest consumer market in the world, the USA. That is the foundation of this so called globalized economy.

So, it has to be reversed. For the only way America can employ the max number of her own people is by allowing them once again to make what they consume. If you do not do that, then the middle class created when we allowed that will wither away and we will have a few very rich people at the top, a sliver of a middle class with most being working poor.

Making what we consume, and then using Ford's idea of paying the people enough to buy what they are making is the key. And it is the only model that will sustain our middle class and allow working people prosperity. It ain't rocket science, but it might as well be, for no one seems to understand the basics here on americans having living wage jobs and enough of them so we do not have half the work force on welfare. We cannot pay that amount of welfare that would be needed. So eventually globalization implodes a nation like America.

[qikager]

The minimum wage makes sense to an extent, but it's something that should be primarily determined by local government rather than the federal government, due to differences in cost of living.

[username18333]

That's also what I meant. Any person is worth whatever someone else is willing to pay them.

Employees and their time is worth what the market determines.

And that, of course, can be a *lot* different that the value they contribute in creating goods and services.

When there is an oversupply of workers, unless there is some other means of setting price (wages), the market sets their wages lower, and the owners reap costs savings and greater profit.

Which is basically what we've been seeing over the past three decades.

Some economists say it is wrong to look at just wages because other aspects of employee compensation, notably health costs, have risen. But overall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time.

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

Can you prove most studies conclude this? There are certainly a lot of them that conclude the opposite of your claim.

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

Raising the Minimum Wage Boosts Growth and Does Not Cause Unemployment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-pacitti/raising-the-minimum-wage-_3_b_7152976.html

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

The evidence is clear: increasing the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

[peterson33]

Why do most studies on the topic disagree with you? Does that ever raise any red flags in your mind? It should.

Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

[abasin]

Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Cause Job Loss

http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

Raising the Minimum Wage Boosts Growth and Does Not Cause Unemployment
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-pacitti/raising-the-minimum-wage-_3_b_7152976.html

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

The evidence is clear: increasing the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/the-evidence-is-clear-increasing-the-minimum-wage-doesnt-cause-unemployment

The Most Rigorous Research Shows Minimum Wage Increases Do Not Reduce Employment
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-loss

Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Notice that I did not say "all studies"? Thanks for those 6 examples. Here's a lot more of them over the past 50 years:

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c876c468-ffca-47ed-9468-7193d734bde9/50-years-of-research-on-the-minimum-wage---february-15-1995.pdf