tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post7939284668422413592..comments2016-10-30T12:26:12.886-04:00Comments on Space Coast Conservative: Why I HATE the Minimum WageSpace Coast Conservative [dot]comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-85263824666399143602010-05-15T10:40:37.142-04:002010-05-15T10:40:37.142-04:00Joseph, Here is the second part of my response:
Y...Joseph, Here is the second part of my response:<br /><br />You said, "so Lenny Ladd is supposed to settle..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: Lenny Ladd would be getting what he was earning by his own actions: a reduction in pay it would be his own doing. If Ken Kirk got a pay raise from Lenny's pay reduction, wouldn't that teach Lenny something? For you to "suppose that..." is changing the scenario and the argument. But, suppose he does. Then wouldn't it be good for the company and bring in more money for the company, therefore earning him a raise?<br /><br />You said, "I mean, you negate your own point..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: I do not negate my own point. You just said so with your statement: "The minimum wage isn't even SATISFACTORY." That IS my point! And, I think businesses would be more "charitable" if not controlled by the government. Although charitable is the wrong word to use because it isn't "charity" to pay a productive employee.<br /><br />You said, "In your world, where businesses..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: In my world, businesses would be able to afford BETTER wages: no one said "substantial". They didn't "convince" Ken Kirk to work for "a satisfactory sum"; he convinced himself because he liked the company. It was his choice, not theirs. In my example, Lenny Ladd wasn't hired to do the grunt work; he was hired to work but barely working at all. And the company wasn't making enough money to pocket and run.<br /><br />Read what I wrote, not what you read into it. Check and find out for yourself what the minimum wage has done to America by researching it for yourself. Start here (copy and paste) http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/federal-minimum-wage-history/ . See where it states, "recent research has shown that higher minimum wages reduce teenage education levels and decrease workers’ long-term earnings."?<br /><br />Then you may wish to check out the Economic Policy Institute's minimum wage search results: http://www.epi.org/index.php/search/index?cx=000246197632131830914%3Ayevepvwfswa&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=minimum+wage&siteurl=www.epi.org%2F#854 . Read them. You'll learn something. Do all of this and I bet you will no longer like the minimum wage, either.Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-69384572429681304132010-05-15T10:39:13.141-04:002010-05-15T10:39:13.141-04:00Joseph, I have to respond in two posts because I h...Joseph, I have to respond in two posts because I have a limit in the number of characters I can use. Here's the first part. <br /><br />I think you may have read what you wanted to see in my blog. <br /><br />You said, "What sort of impoverished ...."<br /><br />RESPONSE: The company is an average mom/pop grocery store and they're not impoverished; they're over regulated. They make enough to have two employees for their store, but they don't make enough to have them both and give one the raise he deserves. Their company is not failing, it is struggling, but not failing. It is making ends meet. And, my point is tha the minimum wage, historically speaking and according to the research I linked to, was never a living wage. Never. So why would my point be that it was a pity that companies have to pay their employees minimum wage when it was never a living wage to begin with? My point is that the minimum wage IS an unlivable wage, and should not be something that the government should be doing. The company and the employee should decide how much the employee gets and that would lead to faster raises and a freer market.<br /><br />You said, "From your post I can't figure out..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: The reason you may not be able to figure it out is because I never stated one way or the other. There IS an equivalency between the person with a degree and a person without: they're both employees and they both have intrinsic value to the company. MY POINT is that it is up to the employee and the company to decide what that value to the company is, and not the government's decision in either situation. Do you not think that employees who got their degree are covered by minimum wage laws as well? The fact that they normally receive a much higher compensation does not negate the fact that they are also covered under the law.<br /><br />You said, "You are aware that minimum wage..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: Yes. I am aware of the minimum wage, but I happen to think it is pretty high, actually. And, no, most people working under the minimum wage don't necessarily work at McD's; they work everywhere. And, yes, if the minimum wage were abolished, McD's would have to negotiate an employee's starting salary, just as Mircosoft does with their college grads.<br /><br />You said, "The fact that it's a huge corporation..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: That "as low as possible" wouldn't last long if people realized that Wendy's were paying 25¢ more per hour and McD's couldn't hire people to work for them because of their lower wage, now would it?<br /><br />You said, "Some people are worth more..."<br /><br />RESPONSE: Exactly. That's why minimum wage should be done away with.Space Coast Conservative [dot]comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08640071289314781752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4565639863864183563.post-10988486245796983302010-04-24T04:53:54.668-04:002010-04-24T04:53:54.668-04:00I'm confused. What sort of impoverished busine...I'm confused. What sort of impoverished business does Ken Kirk work for that they can't afford to give him a raise? Why would he want to work for a failing company when he can go somewhere else and make more money? You seem to be under the impression that the minimum wage is high. In fact, the moral of your story seems to be, "Isn't it a shame that companies have to pay their employees a livable wage?"<br /><br />From your post I can't figure out if you've ever spent any time in the work place at all. I also can't believe you're drawing some sort of equivalency between the value of a person who has trained for a demanding job by going to school and a person who would be earning the minimum wage.<br /><br />You are aware that minimum wage is pretty low, right? And that most people earning minimum wage work at places like McDonald's? Do you really think a person would be able to argue for a better salary at a McDonald's?<br /><br />The fact that it's a huge corporation and would probably set a certain minimum wage for itself, guaranteed to be as low as McDonald's could get away with aside...<br /><br />Some people are worth more in the workplace than others, that's inevitable. Those with the capability to do so will earn better than the minimum wage.<br /><br />I mean, I could go on and on... so Lenny Ladd is supposed to settle for a reduced wage so Ken Kirk can get a higher pay? Suppose Lenny Ladd starts working harder and becomes more valuable to the country? How will they give him a raise? What kind of company is this?<br /><br />I mean, you negate your own point. The minimum wage isn't even SATISFACTORY. Do you really think businesses will be so charitable?<br /><br />In your world, where businesses can barely afford the minimum wage, why would they pay anyone any substantial wage? All they do is convince some Ken Kirk to work for what he believes to be a satisfactory sum but is hardly what he is worth, then pay all the Lenny Ladds to do the grunt work for nothing, then pocket the money and run.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00391875365486436577noreply@blogger.com