Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're making 50% more than those you supervise... maybe.
If you're making $5/hr. more than the people you supervise you're a schm-uck.
Kinda simplistic. I make more than most of the people who are the closest thing to my supervisors (I'm a 1099, but they act in a supervisory capacity)... I wouldn't say they're schmucks, they make pretty good money and most do a good job. It's just the nature of working in a technical field where your supervisors are generally non-technical.
Kinda simplistic. I make more than most of the people who are the closest thing to my supervisors (I'm a 1099, but they act in a supervisory capacity)... I wouldn't say they're schmucks, they make pretty good money and most do a good job. It's just the nature of working in a technical field where your supervisors are generally non-technical.
In my occupation, the supervisor type workers without any skills kept making more over the years, while the skilled workers saw their wages stagnate... Until there were no skilled workers left to supervise. Than those supervisor level workers saw their companies fold or move overseas. Skilled workers had no problem finding jobs, and the money finally started getting better. Donno what happens with all those supervisor level workers that didn't have any skills to fall back on... I can't imagine they have much bargaining power when applying for a job. Companies have responded by trying to eliminate as many of the back office jobs as they could.
Solid technical skills are always worth pursuing. I would much rather have a hard skill than a "soft skill", even if the pay is temporarily depressed. Things have a way of correcting over time.
How about a change of pace from an employer's viewpoint?
Many small businesses have already gone under and many are still struggling. I have a small business that went from 15 employees to 5 - with or without minimum wage increases. I had to move my factory from the Bay Area (which has a high cost of living and wages) to the Sacramento area just to stay in business. If the minimum wage is upped, I'll have no choice but to let go some employees and keep only the ones that I can absolutely not do without.
In my view, the only businesses that wins are the moderate or big corps because they're already not employing minimum wage workers. Most of the outsourced jobs are going to engineers in India, chemists in China and software developers in Germany because it costs 10 times what it does here in the US. Seriously, has anyone hired a web designer lately? I can get a web guy in the US to make a full blown website for $5000 or hire a reputable firm in India for $1000. It's just common sense. Raising the minimum wage only hurts small businesses like Joe's Cafe, but won't put a dent in McDonald's or a Starbucks and the 18-year-old-kid getting the extra $2 an hour is just gonna put it to his pre-order for the next Call of Duty PS3 videogame.
You pay your employees less. Other employers also pay their employees less. An increased number of low salary poor people will bring the demand of your business down and one day your business will also suffer.
You pay your employees less. Other employers also pay their employees less. An increased number of low salary poor people will bring the demand of your business down and one day your business will also suffer.
There is a lot to be said for this! How many businesses will suffer when the middle class shrinks to virtually nothing. No free rides.
How about a change of pace from an employer's viewpoint?
Many small businesses have already gone under and many are still struggling. I have a small business that went from 15 employees to 5 - with or without minimum wage increases. I had to move my factory from the Bay Area (which has a high cost of living and wages) to the Sacramento area just to stay in business. If the minimum wage is upped, I'll have no choice but to let go some employees and keep only the ones that I can absolutely not do without.
Here is a counterpoint. If the minimum wage went up but you got enough money to cover the higher wages for a bit would you have to let someone go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by daddiesgirl
In my view, the only businesses that wins are the moderate or big corps because they're already not employing minimum wage workers. Most of the outsourced jobs are going to engineers in India, chemists in China and software developers in Germany because it costs 10 times what it does here in the US. Seriously, has anyone hired a web designer lately? I can get a web guy in the US to make a full blown website for $5000 or hire a reputable firm in India for $1000. It's just common sense. Raising the minimum wage only hurts small businesses like Joe's Cafe, but won't put a dent in McDonald's or a Starbucks and the 18-year-old-kid getting the extra $2 an hour is just gonna put it to his pre-order for the next Call of Duty PS3 videogame.
If you look at the Great Depression they devalued the dollar by changing the price of gold. It went from $20.74 to $35. How do we devalue the dollar now? 1 hr of work got $7 make that same 1 hr of work get $30 and the dollar is worth 1/4 as much.
Daddy’s Girl, regardless of how much less USA employers’ could reduce the rates of their labor expenditures, they’d be at no competitive advantage to other USA competitors who draw their labor from the same common pool. Eliminating the federal minimum wage rates would increase national poverty and the needs for public assistance but it would not increase USA employers’ competitive advantage over other USA enterprises.
The value of labor supervisors is dependent upon their effect upon their enterprises’ bottom line. When the labor they administrate are among their enterprises’ major expenses and/or the labor’s performance significantly affects their enterprises’ profits or losses, There are greater differences between the value of differing supervisors.
Small business owners generally wear many “hats”. “Mom and pop” enterprise owners are generally the labor supervisors and also they're a significant, (if not the majority) of the enterprises’ employees.
As owners the elimination of the minimum wage would be of no advantage over their USA competitors.
[Foreign competition is a separate issue, but elimination of the federal minimum wage would not be to USA entrepreneurs' net advantage. Concerning foreign competition due to foreign goods, refer to the discussion of “Reduce the trade deficit; increase GDP & median wage”.
Regarding the outsourcing of many technical services from beyond our borders, we as a nation do not grant technicians, craftsmen and vocational training equally to our respect for liberal arts and professions. We pay an economic price for our lack of respect. Among the reasons for fewer agriculturists is our increasing importing more raw and processed crops. There are fewer factories with better paying line jobs and requiring engineers, craftsmen and professionals to produce goods]
Eliminating the minimum wage doesn’t increase the value of labor administrators or supervisors. To the extent the value of labor is less, there’s less financial consequences due how workers are administered and supervised. That’s reasons to reduce the purchasing powers of administers and supervisors.
Although eliminating the federal minimum wage would increase jobs, most of those additional jobs and an extremely great proportion of now existing lower paying jobs will then have purchasing powers extremely less than our current federal minimum wage. Currently most of the working poor do not qualify for public assistance. Elimination of the minimum wage would require choosing to increase public assistance for the working poor or accepting poverties’ increased detriment to our national economy.
Eliminating the minimum wage is certainly contrary to both employed and unemployed laborers. All wages and salaries are affected by the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage rate. Tasks pay rates are generally inversely related to the extent of difference between the tasks’ wages and the minimum’s purchasing power. Refer to “Reducing the federal minimum wage also reduces the median wage”.
Daddy’s Girl, regardless of how much less USA employers’ could reduce the rates of their labor expenditures, they’d be at no competitive advantage to other USA competitors who draw their labor from the same common pool.
If anything... USA employers need to find ways to justify increases in employee wages.
Ideally that would be based in productivity and creativity and (ta dah) increasing profits.
If you're inclined to look for federal measures to change, especially for something that might help
small business and equalize the playing field you have to look no farther than the tax benefits
of employer HI plans.
Absent this one hindrance the small and smaller business would be in a far better position to
compete for the best and most skilled employees --the sort who might otherwise be tempted
to open a competing small business (hint hint)--
You pay your employees less. Other employers also pay their employees less. An increased number of low salary poor people will bring the demand of your business down and one day your business will also suffer.
Exactly!
Just some people here finding it hard to understand this concept!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
