Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Pb on July 27, 2016, 09:38:06 AM
-
"I would say $10," Trump told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly when asked about the specific figure he would recommend. "But with the understanding that somebody like me is going to bring back jobs. I don't want people to be in the $10 dollar category very long. I believe it should be raised."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-proposes-10-federal-minimum-wage/article/2597805
This jackass has no understanding of the economics of price controls. Thanks for saddling us with this person, Trump voters!
-
You can't be serious. The guy proposes a min wage under what most pay already, and he's screwing the economy?
I find that people who hyperventilate about minimum wage tend to understand economics far less than proponents of increasing it.
I know many Clinton globalists would rather Americans compete with Chinese wages in a "free market" between the two countries with no interference. For my part Id rather see policies that leave fewer Americans destitute.
-
I'm not opposed to a minimum wage - so long as every politician makes exactly that amount, and no more.
-
I dunno; at current dollar value, if you can't make an hour of your time worth $10 to somebody, I'm thinking maybe natural selection should take its toll.
OTOH, it needs to be easier to fire someone who is truly useless without having to fight their unemployment application afterward.
As someone pointed out to me the other day, if Taco Bell only hired people who are actually worth $15/hour, the improvement in service might well be worth the increased cost of a burrito.
-
The linked article is the equivalent of a heavily edited video.
I listened to the interview and while Trump threw out a number when repeatedly pressed by O'Reilly, it wasn't like he was making a commitment to it as part of his platform.
One reality, like it or not (and I don't) is that there IS going to be a Federal minimum wage, I suspect Trump is cognizant of that fact and is working with what is instead of what we wish for.
My main take away was him stating that setting a minimum wage should be left up to the individual states. He also stated that any minimum wage wasn't supposed to be a anything but a starting point for people entering the workplace.
-
I have seen many not worth 10 bucks
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
The linked article is the equivalent of a heavily edited video.
I listened to the interview and while Trump threw out a number when repeatedly pressed by O'Reilly, it wasn't like he was making a commitment to it as part of his platform.
One reality, like it or not (and I don't) is that there IS going to be a Federal minimum wage, I suspect Trump is cognizant of that fact and is working with what is instead of what we wish for.
My main take away was him stating that setting a minimum wage should be left up to the individual states. He also stated that any minimum wage wasn't supposed to be a anything but a starting point for people entering the workplace.
This. I happened to see it live by chance; I don't normally watch Oreilly. Trump said over and over it should be up to the States and only gave the $10 answer as an possibility when pressed over and over by Oreilly. He then immediately said it should be left to the States again. I think he even said there shouldn't be a Federal minimum if I recall correctly. It was in no way stated as a proposal.
This is just one more example of taking most things reported about Trump with a large grain of salt. Over and over when I take the time to look into it, what is reported on something he said rarely matches either the truth or context of what he actually said.
-
Only O'Reilly will try to spin something when he is known for the "No Spin Zone."
-
Not even O'Reilly spinning it, the link in the OP is the Washington Post. Some useless urinalist probably caught the interview and tried to make hay out of it.
-
You can't be serious. The guy proposes a min wage under what most pay already, and he's screwing the economy?
I find that people who hyperventilate about minimum wage tend to understand economics far less than proponents of increasing it.
I know many Clinton globalists would rather Americans compete with Chinese wages in a "free market" between the two countries with no interference. For my part Id rather see policies that leave fewer Americans destitute.
Minimum wage is what pays part timers, especially in the food service industry.
This will hike the cost of goods and services.
And a mandatory wage is an unnecessary interference in the free market. But commies like you don't realize that.
-
This. I happened to see it live by chance; I don't normally watch Oreilly. Trump said over and over it should be up to the States and only gave the $10 answer as an possibility when pressed over and over by Oreilly. He then immediately said it should be left to the States again. I think he even said there shouldn't be a Federal minimum if I recall correctly. It was in no way stated as a proposal.
This is just one more example of taking most things reported about Trump with a large grain of salt. Over and over when I take the time to look into it, what is reported on something he said rarely matches either the truth or context of what he actually said.
I just heard Trump's press conference this morning where he basically said the above and also specifically said it should be up to states, giving the example of a wage that's fair for NYC being unfair to other states. He also specifically said it's a job killer.
As an aside, I have to take a step back and say I was impressed with Trump's press conference this morning. No teleprompter, and pretty much no crazy talk. he was cool and collected and actually made a lot of really good points. He also made Clinton look really bad about not holding a press conference for nearly 2/3 of a year. He also called out the press on bias quite well without resorting to the "poor me" schtick he was using early on.
-
I have seen many not worth 10 bucks
And in civilized societies, they had three choices; starve, leech off their own family, or be infantry until they either earned a pension from that or ended up fertilizing some battlefield somewhere. Note that living cradle-to-grave better than I do off my tax money without ever contributing to society isn't on that list.
This also had the effect of families taking more of an interest in their kids being able to do something useful, as there wasn't an all-encompassing government welfare program to turn them over to.
-
I just heard Trump's press conference this morning where he basically said the above and also specifically said it should be up to states, giving the example of a wage that's fair for NYC being unfair to other states. He also specifically said it's a job killer.
As an aside, I have to take a step back and say I was impressed with Trump's press conference this morning. No teleprompter, and pretty much no crazy talk.[/] he was cool and collected and actually made a lot of really good points. He also made Clinton look really bad about not holding a press conference for nearly 2/3 of a year. He also called out the press on bias quite well without resorting to the "poor me" schtick he was using early on.
No. I caught part of it at lunch and even with no crazy talk the media invent it. He made a statement that I found to be a joke and he probably intended that way about that Russia should release Hillary's missing emails if they have them and now everyone's site is claiming he is asking Russia to hack Hillary's email and committing treason. It's crazy.
-
Min wage is one of those things whose benefit or damage is highly dependent on circumstances.
Let us assume a $10 min wage:
1. If the prevailing entry-level wage is $10 or more, a $10 min wage will have zero effect.
2. If it is higher than prevailing entry level wage, fewer marginal workers will be employed and there may well be capital investment to squeeze out more productivity of those who are employed.
3. It may price illegal aliens with bogus documents out of the labor market.
Where the $15 min wage has been enacted, we can see some of these effects.
-
No. I caught part of it at lunch and even with no crazy talk the media invent it. He made a statement that I found to be a joke and he probably intended that way about that Russia should release Hillary's missing emails if they have them and now everyone's site is claiming he is asking Russia to hack Hillary's email and committing treason. It's crazy.
Well yeah, the media came up with it, but I heard no crazy talk from him listening to the whole thing myself.
I heard about the treason thing within five minutes of the conference ending. It was the NYT. No one who actually heard what he said, in context, could take that seriously and not as a joke. It was an obvious dig at Hillary.
-
Min wage is one of those things whose benefit or damage is highly dependent on circumstances.
Let us assume a $10 min wage:
1. If the prevailing entry-level wage is $10 or more, a $10 min wage will have zero effect.
2. If it is higher than prevailing entry level wage, fewer marginal workers will be employed and there may well be capital investment to squeeze out more productivity of those who are employed.
3. It may price illegal aliens with bogus documents out of the labor market.
Where the $15 min wage has been enacted, we can see some of these effects.
It can also price temporary workers out of the market such as students or teenagers though that may be simply due to fewer positions available.
It is also guaranteed to increase costs of goods that depend on min wage employees. A basic hamburger combo will get more expensive. Basic restaurant meal prices will go up. In other words, the costs will be passed on though not always 100%.
-
As someone pointed out to me the other day, if Taco Bell only hired people who are actually worth $15/hour, the improvement in service might well be worth the increased cost of a burrito.
While there are some who won't be affected no matter how much you pay them, there are a fair number of people who will indeed "work harder" at an increased wage rate. It could be a combination of reduced stress*, knowing they have a good thing going, feeling appreciated, whatever.
Worst case, if you're paying more than your peers, assuming your work environment isn't shittier than them, you can at least nab the premium employees in the field.
*Wealth doesn't buy happiness, but research says that it at least pays off unhappiness. Or, more accurately, you tend to be unhappy when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from and/or how you're going to pay the bills.
-
It is also guaranteed to increase costs of goods that depend on min wage employees. A basic hamburger combo will get more expensive. Basic restaurant meal prices will go up. In other words, the costs will be passed on though not always 100%.
I still say costs won't go up because people will be replaced by kiosks. Words of wisdom for the $15/hour crowd: You might not want to go all militant about what you deserve when the job you say is so tough to do can be done by a robot. Or a chimpanzee.
-
While there are some who won't be affected no matter how much you pay them, there are a fair number of people who will indeed "work harder" at an increased wage rate. It could be a combination of reduced stress*, knowing they have a good thing going, feeling appreciated, whatever.
That's great, but as a theory it does absolutely nothing to support the idea of a minimum wage. If you're getting paid more, but can get paid just as much somewhere else, why would you "work harder"?
-
It also effects those closer to the proposed minimum.
If someone who was making five bucks an hour over minimum wage is suddenly making two bucks over minimum wage they will likewise want a raise. And it ain't going to be enough to make up the difference.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
While there are some who won't be affected no matter how much you pay them, there are a fair number of people who will indeed "work harder" at an increased wage rate. It could be a combination of reduced stress*, knowing they have a good thing going, feeling appreciated, whatever.
This has been my experience, and through proper use of probationary periods, employers that voluntarily pay significantly over industry standard can build an excellent workforce that performs well beyond the cost:output ratio of the ones staying at or below standard.
*Wealth doesn't buy happiness, but research says that it at least pays off unhappiness. Or, more accurately, you tend to be unhappy when you're worried about where your next meal is coming from and/or how you're going to pay the bills.
More specifically, if you can afford better stuff and/or good maintenance for the stuff you have, you're not sitting at work worrying about whether your tires/dishwasher/backache can be put off another pay period or two without catastrophic results.
That's great, but as a theory it does absolutely nothing to support the idea of a minimum wage. If you're getting paid more, but can get paid just as much somewhere else, why would you "work harder"?
Which, again, only affects employers paying the minimum. Generally, those jobs are interchangeable; whether someone who is only worth minimum is at Taco Bell or Taco Bueno doesn't really have any impact on anyone or anything.
It also effects those closer to the proposed minimum.
If someone who was making five bucks an hour over minimum wage is suddenly making two bucks over minimum wage they will likewise want a raise. And it ain't going to be enough to make up the difference.
Also an accurate observation at many employers, though those who keep up percentagewise do tend to attract better people.
-
The people who work minimum wage jobs have no bargaining power and employers are all to happy to exploit them. ("I owe my soul to the company store" :sad clarinets: )
I think a minimum wage is a good thing, but a minimum wage job is not a living; never has been and never will be. If pressed for a number, I think $10 is a good one -- but it needs to have lots of exceptions (severely handicapped or retarded workers, less than 5 employees, etc.) Best if the feds just butt out and let the states take care of it.
-
The people who work minimum wage jobs have no bargaining power and employers are all to happy to exploit them.
They have one bargaining chip, that all too many don't use; they know where the door is, and education is available. Doesn't have to be a degree; plenty of cert-only jobs out there if you're willing to get your hands dirty, and a lot of them pay better with a year or two of experience than you could expect to make within several years of getting certain degrees.
I think a minimum wage is a good thing, but a minimum wage job is not a living; never has been and never will be.
And that is the key. People expecting to make a career out of a minimum wage job need to also accept that they're committing to a ramen and Budweiser lifestyle, and stop demanding that they be paid champagne and caviar wages for work that isn't worth it.
-
This is just one more example of taking most things reported about Trump with a large grain of salt. Over and over when I take the time to look into it, what is reported on something he said rarely matches either the truth or context of what he actually said.
So, he's the capitalist Pope Francis?
-
You see his contretemps with the reporter ? The latest one? "Be quiet"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/07/donald-trump-to-katy-tur-be-quiet-226286
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
You see his contretemps with the reporter ? The latest one? "Be quiet"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/07/donald-trump-to-katy-tur-be-quiet-226286
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Katy Tur, former girlfriend of Kieth Oberman? Works for NBC? Whose brother is a "transgender" woman, also a reporter.
I suspect she is being treated with all the respect a Democrat operative with a byline deserves.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289421-trump-contradicts-himself-on-relationship-with-putin
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/289421-trump-contradicts-himself-on-relationship-with-putin
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
This is good too?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
To even make sense, it would have to be indexed to local wages. $10 in San Francisco AND Albuquerque? Sense it does not make.
-
You see his contretemps with the reporter ? The latest one? "Be quiet"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/07/donald-trump-to-katy-tur-be-quiet-226286
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Good for him.
-
To even make sense, it would have to be indexed to local wages. $10 in San Francisco AND Albuquerque? Sense it does not make.
Then let the current situation stay - If San Fran wants a higher than national minimum wage, let them set it.
Hell, Alaska is considering a $10 minimum, in consideration of local cost of living more than local wages.
I still think modifying our regulation system to help encourage enough business activity to reach "full employment" would work better - if employers are always a little hungry for employees, they'll have to pay and treat them better.
-
I still think modifying our regulation system to help encourage enough business activity to reach "full employment" would work better - if employers are always a little hungry for employees, they'll have to pay and treat them better.
I'd rather see them just a little hungry for good employees. The problem is that most of them are hungry for employees, but instead of spending just a bit more on wages to get better people, they hire more idiots and snowflakes that get less work done. I've worked plenty of places that could have done just fine on half the staffing if they'd been willing to pay ~25% more to attract the people who would make that work.
Granted, there are some tasks that need x number of warm bodies, like answering phones or things that have to be done continuously at 2-3 separate locations, (one person can't greet customers at two doors 100' apart, for example, or assist a customer at the bakery counter and another at the shoe department simultaneously) but many non-time-sensitive tasks can be completed quickly enough to stack more of them on one person's list...if that person is being compensated properly; when I did a couple summers as a janitor, I quickly figured out that even though I (and three of the others) could do 3-4 times as much as most of the people there, (and this was verified when we had to cover their exact duties due to sick days, etc.) there wasn't even a process for rewarding better performance, so it became a matter of working at a leisurely pace for ~4 hours, then hiding out and watching TV until about 30 minutes before shift change when it would be time to look busy for the incoming shift. If they'd been willing to double the pay for the four of us, they could have eliminated 8 others and saved 33% in wages alone, plus whatever else went to benefits, insurance, etc. plus the damage that was happening because of imbecilic workers who didn't care if they trashed a carpet, burned up a vacuum cleaner, etc. That would have had us running borderline ragged, but at a really good pay rate for essentially unskilled labor, and adding a fifth hard worker would have settled it into a tiring but manageable day's work while still being cheaper than what they had.
-
I'd rather see them just a little hungry for good employees. The problem is that most of them are hungry for employees, but instead of spending just a bit more on wages to get better people, they hire more idiots and snowflakes that get less work done. I've worked plenty of places that could have done just fine on half the staffing if they'd been willing to pay ~25% more to attract the people who would make that work.
I have tried and tried to convince my employer of this but they don't want to listen... :facepalm:
-
I have tried and tried to convince my employer of this but they don't want to listen... :facepalm:
It works well . I paid good in the 70's and early 80's
I started kids at minimum wage. Gave em a nickel raise every 2 weeks so long as they showed up and did a good job. Till they hit about 7 bucks. Then it slowed down . I was typically some of these kids first job and I had to teach em . I had 16 and 17 year olds making 7 and in one case 8 bucks an hour. And my labor cost was still lowest outa a dozen places he owned .
82 before we got the waves of Latinos I had a heck of a time getting dishwashers. Had a guy who was older but good. His wife worked too. I told him I could hire him help, he made 7.50, or I could pay him 11 to do it by himself and evaluate for another raise in 90 days.
He asked me if I was serious and when I said yes he got busy. With it his wife in him made 70 g. Previously I budgeted 90 g for that dept.
Win win. He went out and bought a house. His wife and him never got past 6th grade in school.
Funny thing was getting income verification call when they bought house. Loan officer thought it was a scam guy doing dishes had that kinda income. But they earned it they both worked hard and long hours
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
It works well . I paid good in the 70's and early 80's
I started kids at minimum wage. Gave em a nickel raise every 2 weeks so long as they showed up and did a good job. Till they hit about 7 bucks. Then it slowed down . I was typically some of these kids first job and I had to teach em . I had 16 and 17 year olds making 7 and in one case 8 bucks an hour. And my labor cost was still lowest outa a dozen places he owned .
82 before we got the waves of Latinos I had a heck of a time getting dishwashers. Had a guy who was older but good. His wife worked too. I told him I could hire him help, he made 7.50, or I could pay him 11 to do it by himself and evaluate for another raise in 90 days.
He asked me if I was serious and when I said yes he got busy. With it his wife in him made 70 g. Previously I budgeted 90 g for that dept.
Win win. He went out and bought a house. His wife and him never got past 6th grade in school.
Funny thing was getting income verification call when they bought house. Loan officer thought it was a scam guy doing dishes had that kinda income. But they earned it they both worked hard and long hours
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have to admit that truly positive motivation is rarely used effectively. Rewards are usually meager or just for show. Most bosses I have had tend to fall back on threats or more commonly set expectations at 110% and crap on you if you don't reach it.
-
I'd rather see them just a little hungry for good employees.
No, they should be hungry for good employees, just a might peckish for average employees, and not at all hungry for lousy ones.
-
I started kids at minimum wage. Gave em a nickel raise every 2 weeks so long as they showed up and did a good job. Till they hit about 7 bucks. Then it slowed down.
Worked one place that actually did quarterly raises, but it was so hard not to get the maximum every time that it wasn't an incentive to do anything beyond the minimum to avoid getting fired. That, and since they topped out (completely - no more ever unless there's a company-wide increase or a promotion) at 18 months, turnover stayed steady right at two years when people realized they couldn't improve anymore.
IMO, the best system in terms of benefit to everybody is the benefit-share that some places do; do something that significantly benefits the company beyond what is expected of you and you get a cut of the first year's increased profit or savings. A few of the places I've worked had started with so much waste in their processes that even simple, obvious changes like ordering commonly-used bolts in 10k lots instead of 100ct boxes (one stainless screw that we use here goes from $1.19/ea in 50ct boxes to $0.49/ea in 1,000ct bags and we often use 200/day) were doubling and tripling people's pay. When I worked for a guy that had a pretty good idea of what an average worker could do in a week, if you did 120%+ of that, he'd pay 50% of the overage as a bonus, plus a free meal. Working your ass off for him was like being on time and a half (or more; the average worker is pretty lazy these days) all week long, plus you never had to buy your own lunch.
-
Mine has everyone on the same pay scale, with the only raises being for time, and caps after five years. It adjusts every October. The only deviation is a shift differential for night shift, maintenance, and management positions.
They then wonder why they have a hard time finding people to volunteer for tasks that require more training, more responsibility, etc. They really tend to wonder why folks jump ship too.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
I have to admit that truly positive motivation is rarely used effectively. Rewards are usually meager or just for show. Most bosses I have had tend to fall back on threats or more commonly set expectations at 110% and crap on you if you don't reach it.
If they were late? Missed a day? F'd up? No raise. Kids were right competitive and I was getting a man sized job done by teenagers.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I have to admit that truly positive motivation is rarely used effectively. Rewards are usually meager or just for show. Most bosses I have had tend to fall back on threats or more commonly set expectations at 110% and crap on you if you don't reach it.
We have a performance incentive program. 18 people under my manager. There hasn't been a performance award on my crew in almost 3 years. Coincidentally, it was almost 3 years ago that they raised the bar from "attainable if you worked a little bit harder/smarter" to "*expletive deleted*ck that, can't really be done with out falsifying time sheets so why bother trying".