The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Connecticut Becomes First State to Pass $10.10 Minimum Wage Bill (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=322561)

Dakotah March 27th, 2014 3:59 AM

Connecticut Becomes First State to Pass $10.10 Minimum Wage Bill
 
Quote:

Connecticut Becomes First State to Pass $10.10 Minimum Wage Bill

Connecticut state lawmakers have become the first in the country to pass legislation increasing the state's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, the same rate President Barack Obama wants for the federal minimum wage.

Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy applauded the move, saying he'll sign it Thursday in New Britain, where Obama appeared to press for a $10.10 national wage.

In back-to-back votes Wednesday, the bill passed the House of Representatives, 87-54; and the Senate, 21-14.

The National Employment Law Project said Connecticut is the first state to pass a $10.10 minimum wage bill. Similar proposals are also being considered by lawmakers in Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii and other states.

Republicans roundly criticized the bill, saying it would hurt struggling small business owners and stymie job growth.

President Obama released a statement on Wednesday night praising Connecticut for passing the minimum wage bill.

"Today, the Connecticut Legislature took an important step towards raising the state minimum wage to $10.10 an hour and giving more Connecticut workers the raise they deserve. When I visited Connecticut earlier this month I was joined by Governor Malloy and three of his fellow New England governors, who represent just a few of the many states, cities, and counties across our country working to raise their minimum wages," Obama said.
Source: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Connecticut-Minimum-Wage-Bill-Law-Passes-Senate-Legislature-Obama-1010-State-252552871.html

There has been much discussion on the merits of raising the minimum wage for workers. My own Province, Ontario, Canada, has recently raised its minimum wage to $11 per hour, with future annual increases that will be tied to the rate of inflation. But there are many who believe that raising the minimum wage will be a detriment to the workers, and that employers will be laying off employees and/or increasing the cost of goods for consumers.

What is your take on this minimum wage hike? How do you think it will impact the Connecticut economy? Do you think it will be a benefit to workers? How do you believe employers will react? Will it in fact increase the cost of goods that we pay for?

Corvus of the Black Night March 27th, 2014 4:28 AM

I wonder how it will affect people economically. I've always been a little against "high min wage" but to balance it out "forced compensation for quality employees". I can understand why minimum wage being boosted would be more effective - I have a feeling with the idea that I suggested that a LOT of violations would be reported and it would be more difficult to track.

One of the biggest problems with working in these min wage places is that they absolutely will not do ♥♥♥♥ to boost your salary. For example, when I worked at Chuck E. Cheese's literally the only thing I could do to boost my pay per hour was to get a training management position and that was a measly .25 cents. It's unacceptable how people think you can keep paying the same people crappy sums no matter how long you work at a place - if you work somewhere for 5 years consistently providing great service, then yes, you deserve a raise, and I wish it would be enforced.

Alas, this is America we're talking about here, which won't build better public transport because lobbyists keep bribing the hell out of congress because LOL CARS or LOL OIL, so what's stopping most major corporations saying LOL NO RAISES. I wish people in government had thicker skin.

Blu·Ray March 27th, 2014 8:14 AM

I think that raising the minimum wages is mainly a good thing. Because think about which kinds of people actually get minimum wages: The people who can't get a better paid job, and the people who come from another country and therefore are willing to take every job because it yields more money than anything in their previous territory.

These people really need the money. They need money to get more intelligent, these are the people who have a hard time to pay their bills and get enough food, and as a lot of businesses hire a lot of people on the minimum wages, raising these wages will directly increase life standards for these impoverished citizens.

Sir Codin March 27th, 2014 8:18 AM

I'll give a congratulations to anyone who manages to keep their job after this.

I'll also give a congratulation to anyone who manages to get a job after this. Apparently they thought your labor was worth it. Otherwise, they're making a bigger investment in you than they would have before, so work hard to make sure your labor was worth it. Look, I think we can all agree that businesses are afraid to lose profits. So I'm placing my money on them raising prices in order to keep the same profit margin they had before.

Sopheria March 27th, 2014 9:57 AM

I personally don't see the logic behind "minimum wage increase = more money for employees". Essentially what that does is forcibly turn certain employees from assets to liabilities. For example, if a company considers a worker's labor to be worth $9 an hour, and they pay said worker $7.50 an hour, then that employee is a $1.50 asset to the company. If the company is forced by law to pay the employee $10.10 an hour, then that worker is now a $2.60 liability to the company, and what incentive does a company have to maintain a liability? The person will be out of a job. And the only thing worse than people not making enough to make a living, is people being out of work completely.

Dakotah March 27th, 2014 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8169535)
I'll give a congratulations to anyone who manages to keep their job after this.

After Ontario's minimum wage increase others thought like you that there would be a lot of people losing their jobs as well. It didn't happen. Of course people lost their jobs but there isn't one demonstrable instance that the wage increase was the reason. I'm a part-time associate in a retail store and after the wage increase I didn't lose my job, nor din anyone else at the store. We're still working as usual. It's just that some of them are making a little bit more money now is all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin (Post 8169535)
I'll also give a congratulation to anyone who manages to get a job after this. Apparently they thought your labor was worth it. Otherwise, they're making a bigger investment in you than they would have before, so work hard to make sure your labor was worth it. Look, I think we can all agree that businesses are afraid to lose profits. So I'm placing my money on them raising prices in order to keep the same profit margin they had before.

My store is currently hiring 6 people for my department alone. Obviously the wage increase did not upset the plans by the company I work for to hire more people. Another theory shot down the drain.

I wonder though, if there are employers who would fire someone because of the wage increase or who refuse to hire new help even if business increases, are they doing this because of the wage increase or because the owners wish to rebel. I think the later is the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 8169680)
I personally don't see the logic behind "minimum wage increase = more money for employees". Essentially what that does is forcibly turn certain employees from assets to liabilities. For example, if a company considers a worker's labor to be worth $9 an hour, and they pay said worker $7.50 an hour, then that employee is a $1.50 asset to the company. If the company is forced by law to pay the employee $10.10 an hour, then that worker is now a $2.60 liability to the company, and what incentive does a company have to maintain a liability? The person will be out of a job. And the only thing worse than people not making enough to make a living, is people being out of work completely.

We have to be careful that we're not advocating a position that basically allows an employer to arbitrarily determine the wages it pays to its employees. Of course the market will, in part, play a role in how high or how low those wages will be, as prospective employees will be looking at the policies of these employers to see who values the work of their employees more. Those that do, pay more. Those that do not, pay less.

Business, historically, does not have a very good track record when it comes to setting their own wages, without a set minimum wage present. Think sweat shops, where businesses exploited workers by paying them "what the owners though the employees labour was worth" subjecting those employees to dangerous worker conditions and pay so low it would make a poor man in China look rich by comparison.

That's why businesses that took advantage of their employees were directly responsible for the formation of unions. I know many people dislike unions, but I think if we go back to a time when businesses were basically un-regulated, we would see a dramatic surge of new unions (or pre-existing unions growing larger as they gain more members) as employees would not long put up with the demands of their employeers.

So in my view this wage increase is actually an attempt to save business. Of course the wage increase will help an employee, but it will also ensure stability for the employer. Without this wage increase, businesses that refuse to pay their employees according to market standards won't be around for long. In order to stay competitive they will have to attract as many prospective employees as they can and you don't do that by under-valuing your employees. By raising the minimum wage, the government essentially has assured these companies that there will be a good supply of prospective employees to choose from in the future. People go to where the jobs are, and where the pay is good. If company A doesn't want to pay their employees well, they'll go to company B for work who does.

Sopheria March 27th, 2014 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessi_sys (Post 8169716)
We have to be careful that we're not advocating a position that basically allows an employer to arbitrarily determine the wages it pays to its employees. Of course the market will, in part, play a role in how high or how low those wages will be, as prospective employees will be looking at the policies of these employers to see who values the work of their employees more. Those that do, pay more. Those that do not, pay less.

Business, historically, does not have a very good track record when it comes to setting their own wages, without a set minimum wage present. Think sweat shops, where businesses exploited workers by paying them "what the owners though the employees labour was worth" subjecting those employees to dangerous worker conditions and pay so low it would make a poor man in China look rich by comparison.

That's why businesses that took advantage of their employees were directly responsible for the formation of unions. I know many people dislike unions, but I think if we go back to a time when businesses were basically un-regulated, we would see a dramatic surge of new unions (or pre-existing unions growing larger as they gain more members) as employees would not long put up with the demands of their employeers.

So in my view this wage increase is actually an attempt to save business. Of course the wage increase will help an employee, but it will also ensure stability for the employer. Without this wage increase, businesses that refuse to pay their employees according to market standards won't be around for long. In order to stay competitive they will have to attract as many prospective employees as they can and you don't do that by under-valuing your employees. By raising the minimum wage, the government essentially has assured these companies that there will be a good supply of prospective employees to choose from in the future. People go to where the jobs are, and where the pay is good. If company A doesn't want to pay their employees well, they'll go to company B for work who does.

Well, two things about that. First of all, since it's the company's money, isn't it only right that they decide how much they'll pay? For example, an analogy that most people here could relate to, if you feel that a game at a store is worth $40 of your money, then that's the most you'll pay for it. If it costs $50, then you won't buy it, because it's not worth the money. That's essentially how it is for any transaction: you determine based on your own needs and desires how much a product or service is worth, and that's how you decide how much you'll pay for it. So if a business felt that someone's labor wasn't worth $10.10, then what's stopping them from firing them?

I'm not advocating it, I'm just taking note of the fact that that's how employers think--in terms of whatever will gain or cost them money, and I don't really see how raising them minimum wage will change that.

The key is to make employers compete for your labor. For example, if I'm making $7.50, but I want to make $12, then what I would do is apply to other jobs in the same line of work, and find one that will pay me the amount that I want. Then once I find one, let my current employer know that they have the choice to either pay me more than $12, or I'm quitting and going to the new job. Either way I come out making more than I initially was. But in order to get there you have to get your foot in the door, and it's harder to convince an employer that your labor is worth $10.10 if you don't have experience.

Dakotah March 27th, 2014 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 8169772)
Well, two things about that. First of all, since it's the company's money, isn't it only right that they decide how much they'll pay? For example, an analogy that most people here could relate to, if you feel that a game at a store is worth $40 of your money, then that's the most you'll pay for it. If it costs $50, then you won't buy it, because it's not worth the money. That's essentially how it is for any transaction: you determine based on your own needs and desires how much a product or service is worth, and that's how you decide how much you'll pay for it. So if a business felt that someone's labor wasn't worth $10.10, then what's stopping them from firing them?

Except we have to remember that a business operates only because it is licensed to do so. That means all companies, as soon as they apply for the license to operate, agrees to all the laws that govern a business. Minimum wage laws are a part of that. I know people would like to see the market regulate wages, but as I indicated the market has been a very poor regulator.

I think it is laughable that business owners would even think that the minimum wage would never go up and are complaining that it is now. They should have seen this and prepared for it accordingly. The cost of goods is going up at an alarming rate, so the cost of living is also increasing. Businesses have been very hesitant to increase their wages on their own which means employee's wages have effectively been dropping faster and faster and the gap between the wealthy and the poor has been growing wider and wider. It's because of this that what was once a comfortable wage is now a wage that barely sustains a person, and where once these people were once considered middle-class, they're now skirting on the edges of the poverty line. Their wages aren't changing, but the cost of living certainly is, and not in the direction we'd like it to go.

This move to increase the minimum wage is a way to try and slow that down a bit. Since the companies refuse to increase wages on their own, and because less and less people are now able to afford things due to dropping wages, it has a very real and detrimental effect on the economy. By increasing the minimum wage, the government hopes to infuse more money into the economy by giving workers a bit more money with which to spend. More money spent means more money into the economy. Those companies that would balk at higher wages are the ones who would in fact benefit the most from them!

I know you're speaking to an ideal, of how things in an ideal world would work. And if it could work, I'd be all for it. But sadly, we humans are very selfish and greedy creatures. We very rarely ever do what is best for society. We almost always only think about ourselves and to heck with anyone else. This is especially true of business owners who will always make decisions based on what will benefit them first, and all other considerations second. Never let a business become unregulated because it will exploit its workers the first opportunity it can get.

Sopheria March 27th, 2014 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessi_sys (Post 8169832)
I know you're speaking to an ideal, of how things in an ideal world would work. And if it could work, I'd be all for it. But sadly, we humans are very selfish and greedy creatures. We very rarely ever do what is best for society. We almost always only think about ourselves and to heck with anyone else. This is especially true of business owners who will always make decisions based on what will benefit them first, and all other considerations second. Never let a business become unregulated because it will exploit its workers the first opportunity it can get.

I'm actually not speaking to an ideal, I'm speaking about reality. I'm actually quite aware that we don't live in an ideal world (I do live in it, you know). What's idealistic in my opinion is thinking that businesses will just continue to keep people employed out of kindness or something. If they're forced to pay more money than they're willing to pay, then realistically they have no reason to keep them on payroll. If they're forced to pay a certain price for people's labor, then it's a choice between keep them employed and lose money, or fire them and lose less money. Which do you think they'll choose?

Dakotah March 27th, 2014 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 8169850)
I'm actually not speaking to an ideal, I'm speaking about reality. I'm actually quite aware that we don't live in an ideal world (I do live in it, you know). What's idealistic in my opinion is thinking that businesses will just continue to keep people employed out of kindness or something. If they're forced to pay more money than they're willing to pay, then realistically they have no reason to keep them on payroll. If they're forced to pay a certain price for people's labor, then it's a choice between keep them employed and lose money, or fire them and lose less money. Which do you think they'll choose?

I think businesses have an alternative choice that you omitted (and one I think some will take): they can keep the employee and reduce the number of hours that employee works. But what's more likely is that nothing will change, despite all the griping. This isn't speculation. It has happened here with Ontario's recent minimum wage increase to $11/hour. At the company I work at, after the minimum wage was increased no changes in staffing occurred. My amount of hours remained the same and so was true of the other workers in my department.

Sopheria March 27th, 2014 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessi_sys (Post 8169868)
I think businesses have an alternative choice that you omitted (and one I think some will take): they can keep the employee and reduce the number of hours that employee works. But what's more likely is that nothing will change, despite all the griping. This isn't speculation. It has happened here with Ontario's recent minimum wage increase to $11/hour. At the company I work at, after the minimum wage was increased no changes in staffing occurred. My amount of hours remained the same and so was true of the other workers in my department.

Well then that just begs the question, was the minimum wage increase even necessary? Clearly all the employers in Ontario would rather pay $11/hour than lose their employees (which is good, don't get me wrong!) So that being the case, what was to stop the workers there from simply saying "Raise my pay to $11/hour or I'm resigning/going to work somewhere else"?

And also, that still doesn't answer the question of why businesses would continue to employ people whom they now consider to be a liability due to their labor not justifying the amount that they're now forced to pay them?

£ March 27th, 2014 12:50 PM

$10.10 by 2017? Wow. England's CURRENT minimum wage equates to $10.62, and it's going up by 11 pence/18 cents this next year. It's very sustainable. Businesses can definitely make a LOT more money out of you for that much money per hour. In my temp job stocking a department store, I was probably moving at least £1000 worth of stock per hour. My £6.39 cut of that movement was a very small price to pay compared to the maybe £500+ margin they were getting on that. In my current job, I'm dealing with even more than £1000 worth of stock (a different kind of stock hoho) for a £9 cut per hour.

This minimum wage nonsense seems fair, but really, you're still getting horribly screwed over at the end of the day. If a company can't use one person to make more than $10 worth of profit per hour, that company is not a viable one to have around. Minimum wages like that are a mild, somewhat irritating dent to the pockets of the minted.

Ivysaur March 27th, 2014 2:35 PM

I think you are also overlooking the part where people now have more money in their hands and are thus able to buy more things, allowing good companies to increase their sales and make up for the extra money in wages.

Just a small tip.

Quote:

The cost of goods is going up at an alarming rate
Define "alarming".

This was alarming: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg/800px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png
This isn't: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

Sir Codin March 27th, 2014 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessi_sys (Post 8169832)
But sadly, we humans are very selfish and greedy creatures. We very rarely ever do what is best for society. We almost always only think about ourselves and to heck with anyone else. This is especially true of business owners who will always make decisions based on what will benefit them first, and all other considerations second.

This same greed and selfishness is exactly the reason why I think companies will lay off employees or raise prices to compensate for the increase in wages. Especially small businesses where they can't hire as many employees and don't have as high profit margins as, say, Wal-mart.

However, I'm going to at least give you the benefit of the doubt that I'm going to treat this wage hike as sort of a social experiment. As long as it's happening, we might as well see what the results will be.

Ivysaur March 27th, 2014 3:14 PM

It's not like this is the first time minimum wages have been increased ever and thus it's a completely mystery how markets are going to respond.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg/800px-History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg.png

So what happened the other times? Well, notice the number most dots are clustered around? It's "0". As in "zero effect".

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Funnel_Graph_of_Estimated_Minimum_Wage_Effects.jpg

Sir Codin March 27th, 2014 3:21 PM

Then if it turns out to not change again, fine. More power to you.

You want to know the funny thing though? I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping it is actually like you say and that raising the minimum wage won't affect employment prospects at all.

But that graph you're showing, Went, also has some outliers in the negative quadrant and therein lies my fear: that this wage hike will be one of those outliers.

Dakotah March 28th, 2014 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 8169880)
Well then that just begs the question, was the minimum wage increase even necessary? Clearly all the employers in Ontario would rather pay $11/hour than lose their employees (which is good, don't get me wrong!) So that being the case, what was to stop the workers there from simply saying "Raise my pay to $11/hour or I'm resigning/going to work somewhere else"?

Because wage negotiation for low paying retail jobs is not an option. It is essentially a guarantee to the unemployment line to ask for such an increase. To ask for a wage increase is tantamount to engaging in insubordinate behaviour. The companies have instituted policies in compliance with local laws mandating wage increases based on employee performance at regular intervals (once a year after 6 months employment), and that is all employees are entitled to... unless the government steps in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sopheria (Post 8169880)
And also, that still doesn't answer the question of why businesses would continue to employ people whom they now consider to be a liability due to their labor not justifying the amount that they're now forced to pay them?

Normally they wouldn't, but the relationship between business and government is funny. At the same time (or shortly after) the government institutes wage increases, they also introduce tax breaks or tax incentives (usually in a new budget) which offsets the cost of minimum wage increases. Companies know this, so they're usually pretty tolerant of these types of increases (even though they like to gripe about it). Those that aren't are generally in the "I want my cake and eat it too" category. They want the tax breaks and also they want to keep employee wages down. It's all about greed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 8170119)
Define "alarming".

For example: the average price for milk per gallon was $3.50 in December, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That price is expected to increase by 60 cents this month, or 17.25%!

Ivysaur March 28th, 2014 4:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alessi_sys (Post 8170837)
For example: the average price for milk per gallon was $3.50 in December, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That price is expected to increase by 60 cents this month, or 17.25%!

Well, between August and September '10, the gallon of milk fell from $4 to $3, a 25% drop! Was the US in a massive deflation? Are prices falling left and right??

No, it's a matter of temporary problems reducing the amount of available milk, which -offer and demand- increases the price. That's why countries have a Consumer Price Index, averaging the main foods and services, instead of just looking at the most out-of-the-norm product and screaming that cost of living is going to be up by 17.25%

This said, in February, prices increased by 0.1%, 1.1% in the previous 12 months together, which in fact averages a price increase of just under 0.1% a month. That is not "dramatic". That is even uder the Fed's goal of 2-3% annual inflation.

Kanzler March 28th, 2014 12:36 PM

I look at that graph and it tells me that the minimum wage has been kept around the same value since the 1950's. It would be really nice if we could have the minimum wage fluctuate daily to account for how the value of the dollar changes, but that would really be a hassle. Fortunately we let it decrease in value and raise it every couple of years - it seems like a reasonable compromise.

I don't see raising the minimum wage as anything surprising or worth vilifying because it's what allows a minimum wage worker to continue buying a bag of milk every week. If raising the minimum wage seems to be a problem to us, then what that tells me is that we're becoming used to the purchasing power of workers' wages being eroded. And /that/ is the real problem, if we're okay with the fact that my wages that bought 4 gallons of milk ten years ago only buys 3 gallons today even though I've been doing the same work all along. Now that's exploitation.

Sopheria March 28th, 2014 1:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 8171672)
I look at that graph and it tells me that the minimum wage has been kept around the same value since the 1950's. It would be really nice if we could have the minimum wage fluctuate daily to account for how the value of the dollar changes, but that would really be a hassle. Fortunately we let it decrease in value and raise it every couple of years - it seems like a reasonable compromise.

I don't see raising the minimum wage as anything surprising or worth vilifying because it's what allows a minimum wage worker to continue buying a bag of milk every week. If raising the minimum wage seems to be a problem to us, then what that tells me is that we're becoming used to the purchasing power of workers' wages being eroded. And /that/ is the real problem, if we're okay with the fact that my wages that bought 4 gallons of milk ten years ago only buys 3 gallons today even though I've been doing the same work all along. Now that's exploitation.

I don't think labor can be quantified in that way though. Your work is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it. As unfortunate as it probably sounds to a lot of people's sensibilities, how much your labor is worth really is solely up to the person paying you.

Also, the cost of goods always fluctuates, based on the fluctuating value of everything in an economy (inflation, for example, is simply a decline in the value of a currency). Things are valued at whatever people are willing to pay for them. It goes both ways too. For example, what would have gotten you 200 MB of memory 15 years ago now gets you a whole terabyte, for the exact same labor. Does that mean consumers have exploited the producers of hard drives? Not really. Computer memory just isn't worth as much as it used to be. Fluctuating value is essentially how profits are made.

I think that the only solution to the loss of workers' spending power is to control inflation. Anything else is just a "feel good" patch to a much bigger problem. But of course, if it works, and no one loses their job as a result, then I'm all for it. But in my opinion even one lost job is a strike against it...

Kanzler March 28th, 2014 1:25 PM

Yes, but there are people behind the labour. This is why social welfare is a thing, and why we have exceptions for human beings - labour being the only thing most own that can produce wealth - and not treat your work like everything else, being worth only what people are willing to pay. And let's not say that employers don't want to pay you $10.10. If a business is in the crapper and they really have to lay people off, then they decide that your work isn't worth $10.10 and that's that. Everybody who's willing to pay you $10.10 is willing to pay you $10.10.

CoffeeDrink March 31st, 2014 7:08 AM

Greed, koff~

The companies that cling to every damn penny and treat everyone under them like dirt is unacceptable. You can work your fingers to the bone and still see nothing come of it. So, unless the CEOs, who make millions of dollars a year, and who get raises yearly have an issue with this. . . it should also be noted that inflation has 'raised' the cost of living without raising the ability for you to afford to live. So your housing costs will be raised steadily over the next five years, but minimum wage hasn't budged in ten years. No man or woman in this country should be forced to live on such small pay. Keep in mind that taxes also come out of that $10.10, so we're really looking at about $9 and some change.

These businesses should realize that the people at ground zero are what support them. Retail, food, clothing. It's all up to those that are paid minimum wage to sell those products. Capitalism sounds like a good idea on paper, but once the plan becomes unstable and shifts in balance, then it becomes obsolete, koffi~

ThatOneWeirdGuy April 2nd, 2014 7:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daigonite (Post 8169149)
I wonder how it will affect people economically. I've always been a little against "high min wage" but to balance it out "forced compensation for quality employees". I can understand why minimum wage being boosted would be more effective - I have a feeling with the idea that I suggested that a LOT of violations would be reported and it would be more difficult to track.

One of the biggest problems with working in these min wage places is that they absolutely will not do ♥♥♥♥ to boost your salary. For example, when I worked at Chuck E. Cheese's literally the only thing I could do to boost my pay per hour was to get a training management position and that was a measly .25 cents. It's unacceptable how people think you can keep paying the same people crappy sums no matter how long you work at a place - if you work somewhere for 5 years consistently providing great service, then yes, you deserve a raise, and I wish it would be enforced.

Alas, this is America we're talking about here, which won't build better public transport because lobbyists keep bribing the hell out of congress because LOL CARS or LOL OIL, so what's stopping most major corporations saying LOL NO RAISES. I wish people in government had thicker skin.

Thicker skin?

Sorry to derail a bit, but for some reason, people either hate major corporations or hate the government. It's both. They're both at the top, they're both the rulers, they both screw you over. There's no difference.

PokemonLeagueChamp April 3rd, 2014 10:51 AM

This minimum wage issue has all sorts of different conflicting factors to worry about.

On the one hand, there's figuring out payroll, and even for larger companies, this can be problematic. Let's say you have 500,000 employees and the minimum wage is $8 each, at a grand total of $4,000,000. A large sum, but easy enough to manage for a larger company. Suddenly, they start demanding a raise of at least $1.10. Doesn't sound too ridiculous, except if you raise all 500,000 employees' salaries that much, it adds a further $550,000 to that initial $4,000,000. Still seems somewhat doable, but would probably require some working with number in the accounting department to make it work. But let's go a step further. Let's say the 500,000 employees are looking for that $10.10 wage. Well, now our hypothetical larger company has to figure out where an extra $1,050,000 is going to come from. And larger businesses can probably still manage the increase, but odds are smaller businesses with smaller profit margins couldn't.

On the flipside, it's not like everyone working a minimum wage job is there because they just got up and left school in the 10th grade. Some of them lost their jobs in the recession, and may have families and house/car payments to worry about. Some are college students, most of whom have to somehow pay for food, cars, textbooks and supplies, and some sort of housing, all while trying to save to pay down college loans(which is an entirely different issue I'd love to get into at some point)and MAYBE have a little extra spending money. Combine that with rising costs of everything, and you can see where at least some minimum wage workers are going to have an issue.

Overall, I'd say performance-based wage increases are the most sensible option. You need a little extra? Keep showing a good work ethic and you'll get it. Are you putting forth minimal effort? Then you get the bare minimum wage. Fairly simple, really.

Livewire April 3rd, 2014 1:28 PM

It's nice to see a liveable wage, even if it's only in one state. The income inequality in this country has been slowly spiraling out of control for years now (Trickle Down, etc.) and hopefully this puts more money in the hands of the employees and not in the hands of CEO's and investors. There needs to be a return to balance, and while this may not be a permanent or even perfect fix, it's a very good start. Expect to see some positive economic impact here soon in Connecticut.

Kanzler April 4th, 2014 7:04 AM

Then again, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that the American government seems hellbent on getting negotiated was predicted by a study to reduce the median wage and undermine real wages for the bottom 90% of Americans (not the top 10%). Raising the minimum wage in accordance with inflation is absolutely normal. But don't let it fool you into thinking that the American government is committed to raising its workers wages, lol. Raising the minimum wage, in the context of everything else that's going on, is not really a big deal.

Study here: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/TPP-2013-09.pdf


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:39 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.