Actually, it does. If it didn’t, mostly everyone would make minimum wage =, wouldn’t they, as it represents the way to pay the least money out. Look at every person not in a union making more than minimum wage. No one mandated that they be paid those higher wages. My employers paid me based on my skills, attitude, and what I could negotiate. And every increase in salary was what I could negotiate based on my contribution, initiative, attitude, etc.
Because we are in the middle of the slide. Our current MW buys less than half of what it did in 1960.
And companies that come in and upset industries take everyone with them. Look at retail. It’s the first in the race to the bottom because of the lower-skill workers.
And it’s been spreading to other low-skill workers. The problem is, as the low skill workers get more competitive, companies get better workers who are at the bottom of the next rung. These people are more capable.
Especially after this recession, I’ve seen people with skills take administrative assistant jobs paying around 35-40k per year. Not destitute, but not awesome. Half of them have proven that they are the bee’s knees, and have moved from the AA role to another role…without a raise to that role’s historical pay level.
One guy I know went from 40K to 45K to take over a sales gig (that he was fully qualified for and had a history of being a sales guy in that sales market). Two years ago, that job had a stated starting rate of 60K for junior sales guys. Now? The guy he’s replacing was making double than he is.
This sort of thing has been going on for awhile. A lot of companies, for instance, will have no problem hiring a guy from the outside into the organization at $100,000 for a position. But if you were promoted from within to that position, you could only get +10-15% of your current salary as a raise. So if you started at $40,000, you’d get a maximum bump up to $46,000.
The reason you can still negotiate salaries and such is because the race to the bottom hasn’t reached your field. Yet.
It’s “different now” because of all these labor laws you’re talking about. It’s the ultimate, “those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” We tried it your way. It sucked.
There’s a reason for child labor laws.
More.
:dubious: THAT is the reality of child labor.
Interesting theories.
But the real world says those theories are wrong. People do pay the lowest wage they can get away with without regard to the possible long-term consequences.
Look around at how many millions of people are getting paid minimum wage right now. Do you think it’s just a coincidence their employers are paying them that amount? That federal law just happened to set the minimum wage at the exact amount that these employers would have chosen to pay? I find that unlikely. What seems a lot more likely is that those employers would pay less if it wasn’t illegal.
And as you pointed out, there are economic benefits to paying people a little more than the least you can get away with.
Well, Terr, I can see why you no longer live in Israel. Too much “We’re all in this together” crap for you here, huh?
Because of other stuff, I was willing to hold my nose on the socialist crap, yes, while I lived in Israel. When I retire, I plan to buy some property there and spend a couple of months a year. Probably around Herzeliya, I like that area.
You say socialism, I say Zionism.
Good news - we don’t have to speculate on this, there’s actually pretty extensive data comparing states with higher and lower minimum wage. The result? Your idea fails miserably. There aren’t noticeable differences in employment, and seeing as most of the companies that hire at minimum wage are retail and food service (which you really can’t offshore, or even export to a neighboring state), this makes pretty good sense.
It’s adorable when libertarians claim that the alternative to the “state deciding what’s best for everyone” is “people deciding what’s best for themselves”, when all evidence shows that the real alternative is “corporations deciding what’s best for everyone”…or rather, what’s best for them and screw everyone else.
Libertopia is an unachievable goal. There are many things the government shouldn’t do, but maintaining the stability of the economy and preventing rampant exploitation of people and common resources are things they should be responsible for.
This American system of representative democracy is so unamerican! We ought to get back to what our founding fathers wanted. You know, “I, the person, in order to avoid any semblance of union…”
You’re comparing apples and oranges, which is a particularly heinous thing to do according to this thread.
Let’s start with you. It’s not about you. It’s not about your experience. It’s about the total sum of employment of every kind in the country.
The driving fact about a minimum wage is that it sets a minimum that is not zero. Though this should be obvious, it’s often lost in the noise. Employers do compete for employees. Nobody has ever said otherwise. The minimum wage sets an entry level for wages that employees can use to bargain with, based on skills, experience, need, and aptitude. Nor is the minimum wage permanent. Even those who start with minimum wage can obtain higher wages though longevity or promotion (either within the company or taking their experience elsewhere). But those higher wages, along with the ones gained upon entry, are predicated upon a minimum that is not zero and not as low as an employer would like. The purpose of a minimum wage is twofold: it sets a level upon which all other wages can be set and it prevents a general deflator effect throughout the economy to lessen the damage during recessions.
The minimum wage was put into law during the Depression for exactly the reason that drives virtually all other regulatory laws: the abuses of not having one were so burdensome to the society at large that they overwhelmed any negatives. The number of people making minimum wage (or less) is about 5% of the hourly wage force. It is precisely because of the minimum wage that those other 95% can bargain their way to a higher wage. And those wages supply the money that keeps all the businesses in operation. (That recognition was probably the only good thing to come out of Henry Ford’s miserable mind.)
Government intervention often - very often - does a major amount of good. Sorry if that doesn’t match your philosophical ideals. As I said earlier, I find the evidence totally persuasive. And I find no support in history for equivalent value stemming from the lack of it in these particular fields.
I know. It’s only because of the minimum wage that I got my $95/hr job. If not for minimum wage, they’d be paying me $2/hr. Thank you, government, for having my back.
My next thread in GD:
“Resolved: the humblebrag is a valid form of debate.”
Was just an example. I am self-employed for the last 15 years. Last time I worked for wages, that was about the right salary. I am so happy minimum wage forced my employers into giving it to me. Otherwise I would’ve had to settle for $2/hr. Or less.
Which post made such a claim?
“It is precisely because of the minimum wage that those other 95% can bargain their way to a higher wage.”
or, of course, post #136 that “mathematically” argues that in the absence of minimum wage employees will pay $0.01. Cuz they have the scarce commodity, you see.
Not even close. As usual.
That explains why you know so much about the current state of job seeking.
I go away from this thread for a few days only to return and find the same old philosophical games that don’t jive with reality.
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
– Anatole France