Inflation has one major root cause..under-production coupled with over-payment for the work done in the production...and to a lesser degree by raw materials becoming scarcer/more difficult/expensive to supply.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 01-24-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: It all depends on marketablity of the product,IMHO. If you are competing with the same kind of producers in your market, then you can LOWER your prices, due to increased efficiency, and therefore increase your market share..and maintain your profitability, increase sales at the expense of competitors..and so continue to be successful. If the marketplace is flooded with your type of product, and there is not a big enough market to absorb your productivity..you are selling the wrong produce

It's just not that simple, it seems like it would be but it's not, there are so many interdepenent relationships in manufacturing and the manufacturing industry and the retail industry that sells the products produced, etc, etc, etc.

You can only sell so many 5/16ths drill bits, the company I worked for as a CNC operator made drill bits and endmills for 100's of companies, Sears does not make craftsman drill bits, there are not as many producers in the market as there are retailers. It would not effect TRW or Greenfield industry if Sears was forced out of the drill bit business by another competitor, Greenfield is still going to produce the same amount of drill bits they will just be going to a different retailer (their overall production quotas have not changed).

You may see 10 different brands of washing machines out there, but three or four of those BRAND names might be produced by the same manufacturer. If one of those brands forces the other under it will not effect the manufacturer's production quota, you still can only sell so many washing machines.
A lot of people think that there is a manufacturing plant for TORO lawn mowers, NO there is not, TORO is a brand name and the same plant that manufactures and assembles TORO mowers also does probably two other brands of mowers.

If the market place ever gets flooded with any particular type of product rest assured the bigger company will buy the smaller producer up and shut them down, regardless of how effeciently or cheaply the smaller company could produce said product.

Am I making any sense?

I don't like thinking about this kind of stuff, makes my head hurt! LOL

Of course, there is another possibility which could be considered..and this is not a slur on you personally, just investigating a possibilty..maybe your earlier productivity was not sufficient to maintain your wage at the time, but they continued to pay you your salary because you had potential..and then, as your productivity increased, your level caught up with with your salary..and stayed level-pegging? That often happens, I am sure. I know of businessmen who pay more than the worth of the job to get an employee, and hope their productivity will catch up to their salary..? But 5 years sounds rather a long time to stay at a set salary..so therefore you are right. You have to move to another job, which will remunerate you according to your ability/experience/work output. But that is the fault of the employer, not you. You just have to do something about it yourself.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: the likelihood of a single worker contributing 10% of their own worth to the profitability of a company is not that high. so the best one can normally do is keep pace. i am a salaried employee working in a small company in a non-unionized industry. i have had one raise in five years, that did not reflect either inflation or the substantial increase in my own skill and productivity. and i rather think that's the norm, not the exception.

There are no simple answers, Boonie. People study economics for years and still don't agree on what's always best. But here are a few thoughts of mine...

A business' sole purpose is to make money. HOW they make money is secondary. They have to make money.
If the business makes a profit, it can expand, hire more people. More people are working, so there's more people with money to spend, so the economy grows.

If the business looses money, it cuts costs or goes out of business. Either way, a person is likely to loose their job, so they now have no money to spend. On a large scale, that causes the economy to slow down, i.e. recession.

Where does minimum wage come in? Well, for most workers they get what the market (or union) will bear. An engineer who is offered a job for $40k won't be taking the job at $30k a year. So supply and demand tend to set some equilibrium in wages. (grossly oversimplified) But what about the entry level worker? They have no real skills and have to be trained. Most of them will cost the company money for a while before they actually begin to make money for the company, but you don't make them work for free. You have to set some scale for what a minimum acceptable wage is.

Who works minimum wage jobs? For the most part, it's people who've never had a job before or are just entering the workforce. These are not typically fathers trying to support a family of 4. It's more likely the 16 year old who wants gas and fun money for the weekends. So, what's a "fair" wage?

If the minimum wage is $5, and a business has 4 employees, he's paying out $20/hr in labor. If it goes up to $6, his cost is now $24/hr. He now has to increase his sales just to stay even, or raise prices. More than likely, he'll let one employee go, and have 3 people at $6/hr. They'll be asked to work harder, but he can afford for sales to slow slightly because his overall labor cost went down.

How often do we see downsizing in businesses today? Trying to do more work with fewer people? Raising the minimum wage will do that to minimum wage jobs.

I'm all for a modest hike in the minimum wage. I think it's overdue. That's evident by the fact that fewer and fewer employers actually pay minimum wage anymore. You can make $7+/hr working at McDonald's. That suggests the minimum wage may be undervalued.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Inflation has one major root cause..under-production coupled with over-payment for the work done in the production...and to a lesser degree by raw materials becoming scarcer/more difficult/expensive to supply. Nick

I tend to not agree with that statement entirely, again it is an oversimplification of a very complicated subject. I do not believe there is a such thing as under production unless someones projected quotas are just way off. Over payment may be part of the problem but overpayment of who, the actual production worker, the guy that delivers the raw materials, the guy that hauls off the garbage, the guy that keeps the rail lines functional or roads passable, the guy that maintains the manufacturing equipment, the guy that maintains the office equipment, the healthcare providers, the schools that educate these people, the liability insurance companys and lawyers that handles the frivolous lawsuits as well as the justified ones, the local/state/federal politicians that decide zoning and taxes, the kid flippin' burgers at the corner mickey d's, the guy re-roofing the manufacturing facility, the guy working at the local power company to keep the manufacturing company running, the daycare provider, the cashier at the retail store, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It's to complicated to adequately discuss in this format!

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: No one at the top of the food chain is accountable for the ones on the bottom?

Nope. There are some benevolent people at the top who value that and take on that responsibility. But it is completely optional.

Government tries to force it by measures like minimum wage. But then non-benevolent employers just react to that in their own best interest. They aren't at the top of the food chain because they don't know how to adapt to whatever the government tries to force.

Regarding being extremely hard to significantly advance from the class you were born into, yes, I suppose it is. But this is one of the relatively few countries on the planet where you have a reasonable chance. I did it. Lower middle class upbringing. I had to work extremely hard, via education and without any guarantee that the hard work would pay off, to gain access to the kind of job I have that now puts me in the upper class of society (financially. Emotionally and behaviorly I am still very 'rutted' in the middle class by choice.)

My younger brother totally screwed up his life before he even hit age 19. Alcohol age 12. Marijuana age 13. Girl pregnant age 15. Married age 16. Second child age 18. Cocaine age 18. DUI age 19. Divorced age 20. In patient drug rehab age 20. He wound up living in our sister's basement and our brother-in-law found him a job in a family owned steel mill just working as a grunt laborer in the lot. He worked hard and well when at work. No guarantee anyone would notice. No promise of any raise for doing so. He was noticed for doing so. After several YEARS of doing that, they noted how well he worked and interacted with customers and invited him to an inside sales job. He took it. Worked hard and well. No guarantee anyone would notice. No promise of a raise. After YEARS, he got promoted to outside sales. Worked hard and well. No guarantee anyone would notice. No promise of a raise. After YEARS, he got promoted to vice president of the steel mill. So now he is in the upper class (financially. He chooses to live in the middle class like I do.)

Neither of us was guaranteed anything for working hard. And I understand that many people that work hard don't get noticed. Many people that THINK they are working hard are not working as hard as we did. But some were and never got the opportunities we got. No guarantees. But there ARE opportunities for advancement. They are likely not available for someone that works a 40 hour work week Monday through Friday and then leaves when the buzzer goes off and heads home to make sure they get in their 4-6 hours of TV a night.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Just remember that a raise in the minimum wage is raise for everyone.

I'd like to see that slogan supported with some discussion, please. I don't believe it.

* * *

Right now the minimum wage in Illinois is $7.50 per hour. That Federal minimum of $7.25 is phased in over two years--so the "working poor" need a raise but they don't need it all for two years?

So a certain segment of our political class has decided that $5.15 per hour just isn't enough. Fine. What is enough? I mean, if $7.25 per hour is good, wouldn't $15 per hour be better? Or even $20 per hour? $20 per hour is around $40,000 per year, after all. You might have to pay $6.50 for a Big Mac, but at least the high school kids working at McDonald's will be able to afford H2s with 55-inch plasma screens and 5,000-watt stereos...

Ed

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Of course, there is another possibility which could be considered..and this is not a slur on you personally, just investigating a possibilty..maybe your earlier productivity was not sufficient to maintain your wage at the time, but they continued to pay you your salary because you had potential..and then, as your productivity increased, your level caught up with with your salary..and stayed level-pegging?

no offense taken, and i think that is part of what happened. i know i was hired at what was considered a pretty good salary, as an incentive to keep me on board for a certain period of time.

i know, however, that it's now unbalanced in the other direction... in current market terms, i'm just not being paid what i'm worth, and having recently received the only raise i can expect for a while, it's only going to get worse.

So, it would seem your potential has outgrown that of the job..and you only have the option to look for another job to match your ability.Trouble is, if you DO keep getting in that position, then your work history doesn't look so good..and that also isn't fair.Just out of curiousity, what do you do? Ne need to tell me if you don't want 5 years , and you should have acquired a considerable degree of ability..perhaps you have joined the unenviable 'over-qualified'..that is worse than being under-qualified...and a damned sight more frustrating.
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 01-25-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: in current market terms, i'm just not being paid what i'm worth, and having recently received the only raise i can expect for a while, it's only going to get worse.

It's time to send those resumes out. All employees are replaceable, once an employer reaches the point that they feel comfortable, where they feel they have satisifed the demands of the necessary employees, that's when the pay raises stop or are minimized. One must be prepared to move on or suffer the consequences of staying put.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

it's all about who has what to gain. it will cost employers more in the short run, because an increase in wages will not necessarily result in an increase in productivity, but will immediately increase expenses. in the short run, good for employees, bad for employees. in the long run, no effect except we'll be paying devalued $3 for a loaf of bread instead of $2.

i'm interested in this because right now i make a bit over the future proposed minimum wage. there are reasons why i settled for this pay rate. for where i live it's a decent job, schedule flexible enough to accommodate school, and i dont want to commute to nashville for a 400% increase. even though we are profitable and the executives and stockholders did quite well this year, i got a 2% raise. what's the inflation rate? if they raise the min wage and my raises dont improve, i'll be gradually shoved down to poverty. it doesnt really worry me because in 2 years i'll be doing a completely different underpaid, underappreciated job.

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 01-24-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Just remember that a raise in the minimum wage is raise for everyone.

Sort of.

One thing that nobody has seemed to notice, yet, is that many union jobs (and possibly others) are indexed to the minimum wage, by contract.
In other words, if the minimum wage goes up by $2 per hour, their pay will increase by $2 per hour too.

That is going to have an even greater impact upon the employers than the "minimum" wage. It won't just be the beginning workers. It'll be across the board.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-24-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Just out of curiousity, what do you do?

i'm currently employed as a web developer specializing in database design and interfacing. it's something like my fourth career, and probably the one i'm going to stick with for a good while.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: It's time to send those resumes out.

it really is, i know. while i haven't fully exhuasted the potential of this job, there are some real barriers in place to significant further professional development and advancement. but various considerations will keep me in place for a little while longer. i'm risk averse, and have a lot at stake right now.

quote Originally posted by fierofetish: Being more productive IS the answer..as long as the Employer recognises,and rewards the increased productivity..and THAT is where responsible Unions come in...so long as extra productivity exceeds the rate of inflation.., then increases in wages are merited to a level achieved by productivity over inflation. If you produce 10% more for the same cost, and inflation rises 2%, theoretically the workforce should be rewarded with an 8% increase.. Nick

Gee last shop I was at, I worked myself right out of a job...

Finished off the cars in for repairs and the owner wasn't supplying more cars to work on so I got to go home... ie. NO pay. I was on hourly and working to do the job quickly and efficiently, that cost ME money.

Min. wage isn't supposed to be a career wage yet there are plenty of employers that pay just that... don't like it go somewhere else.

Lucky for me, I found a shop with a an owner that keeps us packed in cars to work on and the equipment to do the job right.

That factory worker that is used as an example. If they need 10,000 units a month and the person makes them in 3 weeks, something tells me that efficient worker is going to be getting some unpaid vacation. I see that all the time, places cut expenses by cutting wages or hours. My wife has been working for a company for about 10 years, her hourly rate keeps going up slowly but she continues to make about the same take home year after year... hours keep getting trimmed back on full time employees, and she's getting about 35 hours a week, so even though her rate has steadily increased a wee bit per year, the slow decrease in hours eats that up. In reality although she gets raises and has moved up to higher and higher positions of responsibility, her real wages have slowly dropped. This is a major international corporation and it isn't something abnormal. Real wages for most people seem to be dropping year after year as corporations take it out of the workers pockets for the shareholders.

Would they have you working for free if they could, hell yes! The changes in overtime pay should show that, the foreign worker visa program shows that. The fact that if they can't get you working for free they just move to a country where they pretty much can shows that. And their are industries where you can get people to work for you for free... just call it an internship and you've got your own personal slaves.

I believe you learn more, do more, become better at doing something, you should get compensated more. But that doesn't have squat to do with what a job pays anymore. The other side of the coin is/should be how hard/disgusting the job is... the nastier/tougher the job the more it should pay. Sometimes that is true, but usually it's the desperate bastard stuck doing the worst imaginable jobs at the lowest possible wages. And the high tech skilled job... look at the networking guys. Paid big bucks a decade ago, so what happened? Every unemployed person was stuck in a trade school to make them a networking person and the market was flooded with people that were mostly useless. But there was now 100 applicants for every position and the employers could offer lower and lower wages, but that wasn't good enough so they moved every position they could overseas to cut costs even further.

Not calling for communism, just recognizing that life ain't fair and working hard and doing a good job doesn't in any way guarantee a good or steady income.

quote Originally posted by DRA: When minimum wage is increased you will see it reflected in services, therefore it's a vicious cycle, raise the wage, the price of things goes up making the raise pretty much null and void. Meanwhile those whose wages are'nt increased by the increase in minimum wage suffer making the lower middle class standard of living even lower. I don't have any data to back up my opinion, it's just that my opinion, pretty much uneducated opinion.

That's exactly it. I was a supervisor at a Pizza place in CA during two different Minimum wag increases. Within weeks of each the company raised its prices accordingly. Raise the minimum wage to cover cost of living and everyone who employs minimum wage employees raise their prices. Then magically the cost of living is too high again... hmmmm.

A better solution would be to fix minimum wage so that it raises in direct proportion to the inflation rate...

well, this thread is just everywhere....so, lemme throw something in too

I am against raising minimum wage. I am for reducing the workforce. but, not by reducing jobs. instead - by reducing people wanting/looking for jobs. the whole point of all the wonderful technologies we humans have created is to make life easier. so - lets take it easy. get rid of overtime - or even a 30 hr wk limit. and no 2 income households. our mindset is everyone work. well, really, everyone doesnt need to work. we can easily clear out 1/2 the workforce. there are sooo many jobs which are purely busy work, just for the sake of jobs.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Not calling for communism, just recognizing that life ain't fair and working hard and doing a good job doesn't in any way guarantee a good or steady income.

An interesting next step in the discussion, acknowledging the above, is, therefore, what is the conclusion?

Then just don't work as hard as you can and do the bare minimum to keep the job?
Work as hard as you can and maybe it goes for naught and never is recognized, but MAYBE you have the chance to be recognized and have a salary increase or a promotion?

And realizing you might not have a steady income, reduce spending accordingly and save so you have a fund in case you get 'shafted'? Ha. I laugh at myself. I said "save" in a country where most aren't saving and actually, instead, are carrying credit card debt.

Scott-Wa, of course, I'm not expecting that is the case with you individually. But acknowledging the reality you stated, why don't people act like that and try to save some money. I understand that would be hard for the minimum wage earners to do. But at least don't go into debt, then.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so - lets take it easy. get rid of overtime - or even a 30 hr wk limit. and no 2 income households. our mindset is everyone work. well, really, everyone doesnt need to work. we can easily clear out 1/2 the workforce.

Not gonna happen unless the cost of living drops dramatically, and you can convince people en masse that they don't need all the "things" which they work so hard to earn.

quote Originally posted by dguy: Not gonna happen unless the cost of living drops dramatically, and you can convince people en masse that they don't need all the "things" which they work so hard to earn.

even tho the fact that everyone wanting & needing to work is what actually drives down the wages in the first place.......it is supply & demand after all.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: even tho the fact that everyone wanting & needing to work is what actually drives down the wages in the first place.......it is supply & demand after all.

This assumes trust in that if employment costs decline, that manufacturers will likewise reduce the end cost to the consumer, in parallel to the reduced labor costs. Thanks to human greed, ambition, and competitiveness, I don't believe that big business would follow suit.

...which circles back around to my other point, regarding peoples want of "things".

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Are the poor for it or againest it? Or is it just the well-off that are against it?

With all due respect Boon, what difference does this make?

The whole point of the free market system is that you are paid what you are worth. If you THINK you are worth more than the market does who cares? I run into people in my profession all day long who THINK their house is worth more than their neighbors' house. So I say "sorry I wish I could help you' and walk away. Sure enough, they find some agent who is willing to list the house for too much and it sits there...and it sits there...and it sits there.

Well ask yourself this question, if the government intervened and said all homes in the neighborhood must be equally priced at the higher value, fewer people could afford to pay for them, fewer people would WANT to pay for them (they would move out of the area), and the local economy would collapse since NO ONE WANTED TO LIVE THERE!

This is exactly the same situation. 60% of all employees in America workd for small business (1-25 personnel in size). Now force the employer to raise the pay of those 25 people and what happens to his profit? Now he either has to reduce staff (unemployment rises), he has to raise prices (inflation goes up), or he has to cut costs elsewhere (quality goes down, etc). Now what is the impact on the person making an extra .50 an hour? Well, inflation is causing prices to rise so their new found pay rise doesn't help them a bit. Many of them are out of work due to unemployment increases so life is doubly hard on them with increasing prices and no income. So they go on welfare. Guess what, taxes go up now!

It is the butterfly wing scenario. The Soviets learned the hard way that you can not control markets. It leads inevitably to economic collapse.

Well, the way I see it, if you take the minimum wage of the early 80s and add inflation to it, it would be about $9 in today's money. So, inflation has gone up, but the minimum wage has not kept up. It's not really feasable to pin m/w to inflation, but it should go up a little quicker than it has. Or, you could make a 2 tier system for m/w. A lower wage for high school students, and a higher one for those that are older than 20. It wouldn't be all too hard to implement, but, it might be hard to enforce considering that most business owners are a greedy bunch anyway. They do go into business to make money, not give it away to someone helping them make the money they want.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: With all due respect Boon, what difference does this make? The whole point of the free market system is that you are paid what you are worth. If you THINK you are worth more than the market does who cares? I run into people in my profession all day long who THINK their house is worth more than their neighbors' house. So I say "sorry I wish I could help you' and walk away. Sure enough, they find some agent who is willing to list the house for too much and it sits there...and it sits there...and it sits there. Well ask yourself this question, if the government intervened and said all homes in the neighborhood must be equally priced at the higher value, fewer people could afford to pay for them, fewer people would WANT to pay for them (they would move out of the area), and the local economy would collapse since NO ONE WANTED TO LIVE THERE! This is exactly the same situation. 60% of all employees in America workd for small business (1-25 personnel in size). Now force the employer to raise the pay of those 25 people and what happens to his profit? Now he either has to reduce staff (unemployment rises), he has to raise prices (inflation goes up), or he has to cut costs elsewhere (quality goes down, etc). Now what is the impact on the person making an extra .50 an hour? Well, inflation is causing prices to rise so their new found pay rise doesn't help them a bit. Many of them are out of work due to unemployment increases so life is doubly hard on them with increasing prices and no income. So they go on welfare. Guess what, taxes go up now! It is the butterfly wing scenario. The Soviets learned the hard way that you can not control markets. It leads inevitably to economic collapse.

now theres a whole big bucket of truth

us here in michigan cry about outsourcing. unions forcing stupidly high labor rates is why the jobs left. its not we smell funny (well, maybe) its not we are ugly (again, maybe) its we expect to much. $20 dollar an hour broom pusher. thats even good today - thats the rate for the guy who pushed the broom around our Fieros when they was made.

inflation is a system put in place to keep people from sitting or squatting on cash. basicly - use it or lose it. keep the money flowing.

a fun one is to compare wages with women. not as in what women make vs what men make. as in - women have something men want. women get upset with other women who give that something away. slut I think is the word? everyone has their own limit & price. yes...I'm a slut....cheap b!tch....

if you dont do it, someone else will - the key to wages. every job requires a certain level of person. if you have a position that any monkey can do, well, you have a very low labor cost, dont you? if you require a skill - you wanna pay a little more than monkey wages, or you will end up with monkeys. some complain the robotics cause job loss. well, kinda. robots can do little more than monkey work. and, the design, creation, maintainance & programming of these robots its a whole new set of jobs. which is NOT monkey work.

for the people who seem to beleive they "work hard". from what I have seen - hard work & pay are at an inverse. if you "work hard" - good chance - you dont recieve much pay. you may work long hours, you may have pressure from superiors - but - working hard involves sweat. real sweat. usually dirt too. if you sit & talk - you DONT WORK HARD. if a pencil/pen/keyboard is your primary work tool - YOU DONT WORK HARD

and - the final statement - if you work a job, with a boss, a paycheck, a punchclock - well, nevermind - to many people will go nutz....lemme just say - your not doing well....

(PY exclusion statement: when talking about people - one size does not fit all - there is an exception to any blanket statement)

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: a fun one is to compare wages with women. not as in what women make vs what men make. as in - women have something men want. women get upset with other women who give that something away. slut I think is the word? everyone has their own limit & price. yes...I'm a slut....cheap b!tch....

what in the bloody hell does a substantive and so-far cordial exchange on the principles of capitalist economics have to do with this weird little window into your psyche?

quote if a pencil/pen/keyboard is your primary work tool - YOU DONT WORK HARD

it's called labor specialization, bub.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-25-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But what about that $150.00 shoe that was built for $1.50 by workers that make 70 cents an hour.

Bad example. The shoes I am wearing cost me $19. No one is forced to pay $150 and there are cheaper alternatives out there. If no one was willing to pay $150 then the price would go down.

Now if the shoe manufactures started working together to control the cost of materials needed to make the shoes and limited how many factories were allowed to actually assemble the shoes and prevented the building of new factories for decades and the retailers worked together to make sure that one outlet wasn't significantly cheaper than annother causing all shoes to be $150, then that would be a valid point.
Can anyone tell me of an industry that does this while we (and our elected officials) allow this to happen?

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: what in the bloody hell does a substantive and so-far cordial exchange on the principles of capitalist economics have to do with this weird little window into your psyche? ... it's called labor specialization, bub.

example of supply & demand - and that some with the supply will sell for less - I just find it cute.

yes, specialization - either way - NOT hard work. I dont work hard. I press keys & move a mouse. not many people can do what I do, but - its not hard work.
Fast Food people work harder than I do. Lawn crews are some hard workers. you CANT work very hard in a suit & tie (or skirt & heels). sitting & talking is NOT hard work.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: example of supply & demand - and that some with the supply will sell for less - I just find it cute. yes, specialization - either way - NOT hard work. I dont work hard. I press keys & move a mouse. not many people can do what I do, but - its not hard work. Fast Food people work harder than I do. Lawn crews are some hard workers. you CANT work very hard in a suit & tie (or skirt & heels). sitting & talking is NOT hard work.

I gotta agree with Euterpe. I work at a job where I can be at a desk one day and out in the field the next. (Army Human Resources Supervisor) I can come home from work more exhausted from behind the desk for 8 hours over in the field for 12 hours. HARD WORK does not always equal LABOR INTENSIVE work

quote Originally posted by aceman: I gotta agree with Euterpe. I work at a job where I can be at a desk one day and out in the field the next. (Army Human Resources Supervisor) I can come home from work more exhausted from behind the desk for 8 hours over in the field for 12 hours. HARD WORK does not always equal LABOR INTENSIVE work

I understand what you are saying. and, being "hard work" is not really definable - you are just as right as anyone else.
many would say setting up a database, designing a bridge, running a country is hard work.
I dont. purely opinion. I do equate labor intensive work with hard work.

As a second year college student working for a small hourly wage, I am personally against raising the minimum wage.

1. Because I do not see a need to. Those working dead end minimum wages jobs are not forced to work there. There are plenty of government programs and aid (I know, I am recieving college aid) that will help a person further educate themselves to raise themselves in the work force and get paid more. Someone flipping burgers at McDicks has the potential to move on to a better paying job and get paid more if they chose to do so. Raising there wage increases the cost of everything else and causes the loss of jobs for everyone to cater to those who don't/won't better themselves in the work field.

2. I personally prefer to see as little government intervention into business and peoples personal lives as possible, this is just more of the government telling people how to run thier businesses/lives.

~ Derek

As DRA said, this is completely my opinion and not backed by anything professional or scientific.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I understand what you are saying. and, being "hard work" is not really definable - you are just as right as anyone else. many would say setting up a database, designing a bridge, running a country is hard work. I dont. purely opinion. I do equate labor intensive work with hard work.

i get the point. i had the initial impression that you were complaining, more than differentiating.
i will certainly agree that in terms of sweat and ergs, what i do is not "hard work." it's just more specialized, which is the normal economic justification for the pay differences.
i also agree that those pay differences do not adequately reflect what i think of as real social value.
not everything of worth can be monetized.

I don't understand the argument. I still say if an employee expects a raise, the company should reciprocally be able to expect increased productivity. Why is that so hard?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't understand the argument. I still say if an employee expects a raise, the company should reciprocally be able to expect increased productivity. Why is that so hard?

at the most basic "hit the button - retrieve part - repeat" jobs - yes you are 100% correct. these jobs are usually at the bottom of the pay scale. and, you will never be able to push the button fast enough to make it a decent paying job.
most decent paying jobs, dont actually have a measuarable "productivity".

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: at the most basic "hit the button - retrieve part - repeat" jobs - yes you are 100% correct. these jobs are usually at the bottom of the pay scale. and, you will never be able to push the button fast enough to make it a decent paying job. most decent paying jobs, dont actually have a measuarable "productivity".

I disagree. How many people for example do you suppose are posting here from work?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't understand the argument. I still say if an employee expects a raise, the company should reciprocally be able to expect increased productivity. Why is that so hard?

if that were held to strictly, then any employee would have to continue to show a fairly measurable increase in productivity every year, just to keep their own income scaled to inflation. just doing your job would mean forever falling behind.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I disagree. How many people for example do you suppose are posting here from work?

me

but, my job is more like a fireman's job. on call. on site. in fact, I have several things going on around me right now - as I type this....
and, I also am "never" off the job. I solve problems at any time. everytime I learn something new - I am that much better at my job. a good example you have 1st hand with is the attack on my FTP site. the final solution was found and implimented on a saturday night, at home. (with beer in hand even )

I skipped everyone's posts to give you an uninfluenced opinion.
Ya know, if minimum wage went up two dollars an hour and my hourly salary did too, I would be for it. Why don't we set an average wage and a top wage? Lets limit what CEOs make. Athletes and movie stars also. This country would not have flourished without freedoms. Capatalism is one of them.
Ya know, I recently went to a ...umm...slower than fast food restaurant and they were paying $7.25 an hour. Isn't that $1.95 above minimum wage? It was slower than fast food because it was a bar-b-que joint but the workers were either of student age or part timers. Supply and demand works both ways. Hindering supply and demand is sort of like messing with mother nature. Supply and demand is human nature.
Now, does minimum wage apply to illegal immigrants? (How can it? We do not know where they work or who hires them. Hell, how do we even know there are twelve million of them?) We are allowing people in illegally so money making companies can pay cheap wages. We are allowing wages to be driven down. Don't tell me they are doing jobs we won't do. On a side note... Govenor Ahnold is giving emergency benifits to illegal aliens because global warming wiped out the crops in a freeze. If that were not bad enough, the illegals jump to the front of the line in front of other needy people.
Ya know, I think the only time I ever made minimum wage was when I got my first job. Let'[s just take it a step further. Why not a minimum wage for carpenters. Another for plumbers. One for mechanics. On and on and on. Who set the minimum wage for politicians?
Ya know what I think? Just like a drug dealer giving you your first dose for free, I think the Democrats are trying to hook new/young users.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-25-2007).]

Have you thought of going into business for yourself, maybe part time to get some recognition? Or does your current employee have your intellectual rights pretty well locked up?

I'm asking this seriously. I'm thinking we might need to talk about something.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: it really is, i know. while i haven't fully exhuasted the potential of this job, there are some real barriers in place to significant further professional development and advancement. but various considerations will keep me in place for a little while longer. i'm risk averse, and have a lot at stake right now.