Minimum Wage Laws-Are they any good?

[HotPinkConsevative]

I was reading through the UCCS Newspaper's archives and I found an interesting article by a friend of mine

The decline and fall of Fred Flinstone
By Adam Brickley
Political Columnist

We’ve all seen the cartoons, but did you ever wonder what happened to Fred and Wilma Flintstone in their later years? Through my studies of the economics of minimum wage laws, I have come up with a hypothesis about why Hanna-Barbara stopped making films about the famous stone-age quarryman and his companion Barney Rubble. I believe that no more Flintstones cartoons were made because Fred Flintstone died a penniless victim of minimum wage legislation. Here is how I think the story ended:

Flintstone’s employer, Mr. Slate, made 20 clams per month selling rocks, and he needed five workers to efficiently get the rocks out of his quarry. So, he employed Fred, Barney, and three of their fellow cavemen at a salary of four clams a month. The quarry workers were more than happy with their salary. However, the Rock Cutters Union thought that they weren’t getting enough and petitioned the Bedrock City Council to implement a minimum wage of five clams per month. The council agreed and told Mr. Slate that he had to raise his wages. Unfortunately, Mr. Slate still had only 20 clams a month to pay, so he had to lay off Fred. Without Fred, the quarry produced fewer rocks and Mr. Slate earned fewer clams, so Barney had to be let go as well. Slate refused to hire illegal immigrants to replace Fred and Barney, so the domino effect continued until the quarry was forced to go out of business.

Out of work and starving, Fred and Barney went looking for new employment. Barney had been going to night school, so he was able to get a job as a biochemist and went on to invent the chewable vitamin. On the other hand, Fred was not trained in anything except cutting rocks. He applied at other quarries, but none of them could afford to pay him the new minimum wage. Fred and Wilma were forced to sell their beloved pet Dino to a local meat packing plant to make ends meet, and they were later evicted from their home by the Bank of Bedrock.

The story of the Flintstones’ troubles is an extreme example (not to mention a totally fictional one), but it shows very clearly how minimum wage laws are bad for the economy. They artificially jack up the price of labor and force companies to hire fewer workers. Those people who could have been hired for slightly lower wages become unemployed because nobody can afford to pay them. Minimum wage laws don’t help the Fred Flintstones of the world; they merely put them out of a job.

[avatar4321]

maybe im clueless but what does this have to do with religion or ethics?

[HotPinkConsevative]

Well, I couldn't think of what catogory to put it in, and I was already in religon or ethics, so I decided just to put it there

[HotPinkConsevative]

hope that ya'll don't mind too much!

[JohnDoe]

Hot pink, the story is unrealistic for many reasons...1) Salary for employees only amounts to about 10% of Mr. Slates's gross sales... Mr Slate does not have only 20 clams worth of bedrock pulled out of the quarry....more than likely he has 200 clams worth of bedrock pulled out of the quarry...paying 20 clams to his employees.

What mr slate would need to do if he paid the 5 employees 5 clams each, or 25 clams in total is to get the employees to increase their own production and pull out 250 clams worth of bedrock out of the quarry to compensate for the sight increase in his employees wages. So each employee would need to increase their productivity from 40 rocks a month to 50 rocks a month by working harder or by becoming more efficient in their rock removal with newer equipment.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

I think minimum wage laws actually serve as a "maximum"....once they are in place, every employer knows exactly how much he has to pay to get rock-bottom labor.....if there were no minimum wages, the cost of labor would gradually increase with the market.....thus minimum wage laws actually do more harm to low income workers than good......

[JohnDoe]

I think minimum wage laws actually serve as a "maximum"....once they are in place, every employer knows exactly how much he has to pay to get rock-bottom labor.....if there were no minimum wages, the cost of labor would gradually increase with the market.....thus minimum wage laws actually do more harm to low income workers than good......I think that is an absolute fallacy. There is NOTHING that prevents the employer from raising wages with the minimum wage out there, and guess what....for the most part they haven't, and they still search for means to pay employees less than the minimum, like hiring illegals.

There is no loyalty to their employees at this level in the "market Place", not as far as I have seen.

jd

[darin]

a POOR man never gave anybody a job

[JohnDoe]

a POOR man never gave anybody a jobOh, but he did give the businessman who employs him GOOD PROFITS and cash in his pocket....

and the poor man still has to eat, have clothes to wear, and have a roof over their head WHICH IS indirectly giving others a job.... to discount this is a flawed type of thinking imo.

there would be NO BUSINESS, without the workers making the business happen. It should be a partnership with the worker and employer imo, because they BOTH need eachother.... it is NOT a onesided game.

jd

[darin]

If the poor man is working, he's not poor. If he IS poor AND working, he's just lazy and deserves what he gets.

(shrug).

[HotPinkConsevative]

Hot pink, the story is unrealistic for many reasons...1) Salary for employees only amounts to about 10% of Mr. Slates's gross sales... Mr Slate does not have only 20 clams worth of bedrock pulled out of the quarry....more than likely he has 200 clams worth of bedrock pulled out of the quarry...paying 20 clams to his employees.

What mr slate would need to do if he paid the 5 employees 5 clams each, or 25 clams in total is to get the employees to increase their own production and pull out 250 clams worth of bedrock out of the quarry to compensate for the sight increase in his employees wages. So each employee would need to increase their productivity from 40 rocks a month to 50 rocks a month by working harder or by becoming more efficient in their rock removal with newer equipment.

jd

What if The five employees were working as hard as they could, and therefore could not possibly increase there production by even ten clams each? Plus, on the side that Mr. Slate could just buy new equipment so that his employees could be more efficient, simply doesn't work because Mr. Slate may not have enough clams to buy new equipment because he is already paying his employees five clams instead of four like he used to.

[JohnDoe]

What if The five employees were working as hard as they could, and therefore could not possibly increase there production by even ten clams each? Plus, on the side that Mr. Slate could just buy new equipment so that his employees could be more efficient, simply doesn't work because Mr. Slate may not have enough clams to buy new equipment because he is already paying his employees five clams instead of four like he used to.He finds a way to be more efficient, every business is faced with this daily. What would he do if gasoline went up and that was a product that he had to use to pull out the bedrock? What would he do if transportation costs went up to get the bedrock to the Stone factory that sells his bedrock? What would he do if the health Insurance costs of his employees goes up too....

DAILY, businesses are affected by these kind of scenarios and daily, businesses have to make judgements on how to become more efficient with their own businesses....or they will be in the dust. If they can't stand the heat, then get out of the fire.... they are not meant to be in business in the first place if their whole business is going to fail because of a slight increase in their employees salary.

cutting the employee is the easy way out, but the ones left would only be pulling out 160 rocks a month and the owner would not be making what he was making if he had kept the employee, UNLESS they took measures to improve the efficiency of their business....

jd

[HotPinkConsevative]

I think minimum wage laws actually serve as a "maximum"....once they are in place, every employer knows exactly how much he has to pay to get rock-bottom labor.....if there were no minimum wages, the cost of labor would gradually increase with the market.....thus minimum wage laws actually do more harm to low income workers than good......


Once minimum wage went into effect, producers couldn't afford to hire just anybody, they had to hire the people who already new how to do the job, producers suddenly became way more picky on who they hired. Good labor became harder to find, and they were more expensive then it was before, so the companies and producers used more money in hiring then they used to.
LisaNTexas

[HotPinkConsevative]

He finds a way to be more efficient, every business is faced with this daily. What would he do if gasoline went up and that was a product that he had to use to pull out the bedrock? What would he do if transportation costs went up to get the bedrock to the Stone factory that sells his bedrock? What would he do if the health Insurance costs of his employees goes up too....

DAILY businesses are affected by these kind of scenarios and daily businesses have to make judgements on how to become more efficient with their own businesses....or they will be in the dust. If they can't stand the heat, then get out of the fire.... they are not meant to be in business in the first place if their whole business is going to fail because of a slight increase in their employees salary.

cutting the employee is the easy way out, but the ones left would only be pulling out 150 rocks a month and the owner would not be making what he was making if he had kept the employee, UNLESS they took measures to improve the efficiency of their business....

jd

But what if the same year that minimum wage started the people of Bedrock had started having less use of Mr. Slate's quarry, so Mr. Slate dicides that he needs to make some changes to make his production go way up, so the cost of his product would go down and meet with the amount that the people of Bedrock were willing to pay, he picks out some machinary that he figured that he would get at the end of the month, then those "Loving People" dicided that Mr. Slate wasn't paying his employees enough, and that's when all Mr. Slate's careful planning compleatly fell though, and he was forced to lay everyone off one by one.

[JohnDoe]

Once minimum wage went into effect, producers couldn't afford to hire just anybody, they had to hire the people who already new how to do the job, producers suddenly became way more picky on who they hired. Good labor became harder to find, and they were more expensive then it was before, so the companies and producers used more money in hiring then they used to.
LisaNTexas
BUT they are doing such to make their business more efficient and more productive. Hiring someone with knowledge of the business over someone that knows nothing is always an option and one that businesses should always consider.

--------------------------------------

One thing that I did not mention is that in most companies, not all of their employees are minimum wage earners... for example, mr Slate, in addition to his 5 quarry workers also has an accountant to do his books, a payroll person to do his payroll, a manger to oversee the quarry workers and someone to handle the benefits they give to their employees, and an asst manager to cover the hours when the manager is not there, and a secretary, and a salesman that sells his product, all of whom were not minimum wage employees in the first place.

So if his payroll goes up by 20% for the minimum wage workers(5 of them out of 10 employees in total), this might actually only be a 5% rise in his overall payroll costs, which was 10% of the total business....thus resulting in his payroll costing him 10.5% of his total business....surely a number that he could afford without cutting his staff and surely a small enough percentage increase to compensate by increased production.

He can raise his prices by 5% and not have another worry too. He has to raise prices when gasoline or oil goes up in price, and still manages to survive as a business....

jd

[Classact]

The moral of the story is that government shouldn't involve itself in matters of free market capitalism. It seems the union was the problem so perhaps the owner of the business with employees desiring a union should have held out. Unions can only be fair if everyone has one because they, as in the story have a ripple effect throughout the community they exist. This was clear in Mo Town with the auto makers where eighth graders joined the union and worked for $24 an hour with other benefits while those on minimum wage were working for $3.75 and all used the same dry cleaners and had access to housing that automatically went higher.

The minimum wage closes out possibilities of hiring teens for summer work to build work skills and it closes the door to older retired people who may like to work just for something to do for extra spending money such as janitor or policing shopping carts at the grocery store... both of these close downs cause prices to go higher that every person shares.

Minimum wage is for select groups, like unions... They always start off Non Farm Payrolls... what farm workers are less deserving? Why is the Minimum wage for farm workers still $2.55? We all buy the same food whether we are farm workers or union workers so why discriminate?

If one union exists then everyone down to housewives/husbands needs one. If a minimum wage is smart then don't start it out with discrimination.

[JohnDoe]

The moral of the story is that government shouldn't involve itself in matters of free market capitalism. It seems the union was the problem so perhaps the owner of the business with employees desiring a union should have held out. Unions can only be fair if everyone has one because they, as in the story have a ripple effect throughout the community they exist. This was clear in Mo Town with the auto makers where eighth graders joined the union and worked for $24 an hour with other benefits while those on minimum wage were working for $3.75 and all used the same dry cleaners and had access to housing that automatically went higher.

The minimum wage closes out possibilities of hiring teens for summer work to build work skills and it closes the door to older retired people who may like to work just for something to do for extra spending money such as janitor or policing shopping carts at the grocery store... both of these close downs cause prices to go higher that every person shares.

Minimum wage is for select groups, like unions... They always start off Non Farm Payrolls... what farm workers are less deserving? Why is the Minimum wage for farm workers still $2.55? We all buy the same food whether we are farm workers or union workers so why discriminate?

If one union exists then everyone down to housewives/husbands needs one. If a minimum wage is smart then don't start it out with discrimination.

YOU don't seem to understand GREED, if the businesses could pay a dollar an hour for the help they would, so that those at the top can make their huge salaries. The 20 million illegals working in our country today is a sign of the greed the businesses have....and HOW the supposed free market can be taken advantage of with illegal means, instead of paying what the free market calls for, for the workers imo.

Also, I don't know of any unions for minimum wage workers, do you?
jd

[darin]

JD - admit it. You're a communist.

[Hobbit]

YOU don't seem to understand GREED, if the businesses could pay a dollar an hour for the help they would, so that those at the top can make their huge salaries. The 20 million illegals working in our country today is a sign of the greed the businesses have....and HOW the supposed free market can be taken advantage of with illegal means, instead of paying what the free market calls for, for the workers imo.

Also, I don't know of any unions for minimum wage workers, do you?
jd

You're forgetting the competitive component. Do you know why most companies pay the majority, if not all, of their workers well above minimum wage? Competition. If company A only offers $1/hour to their workers (which is about what human labor below the neck is worth, in my opinion), they'd have cheap labor, but if company B down the street offers $2/hour, that company's going to snatch up all the good workers, so company A will either raise wages or go out of business, and the cycle repeats until an equilibrium price has been reached. If you force companies to hire workers for more than they're worth, they'll just find a substitute, such as automation, and hire fewer workers.

[JohnDoe]

You're forgetting the competitive component. Do you know why most companies pay the majority, if not all, of their workers well above minimum wage? Competition. If company A only offers $1/hour to their workers (which is about what human labor below the neck is worth, in my opinion), they'd have cheap labor, but if company B down the street offers $2/hour, that company's going to snatch up all the good workers, so company A will either raise wages or go out of business, and the cycle repeats until an equilibrium price has been reached. If you force companies to hire workers for more than they're worth, they'll just find a substitute, such as automation, and hire fewer workers.

SOOOOOOOOOO, WHY haven't they raised their employees salaries, via the free market, instead of just finding a way around our supposed free market, by hiring illegals for less to do the job? Why didn't they just raise the salaries of their American born tomatoe pickers with the demand, to get the american workers to do the job they needed done, instead of letting them go, and hiring illegals instead?

[Immanuel]

SOOOOOOOOOO, WHY haven't they raised their employees salaries, via the free market, instead of just finding a way around our supposed free market, by hiring illegals for less to do the job? Why didn't they just raise the salaries of their American born tomatoe pickers with the demand, to get the american workers to do the job they needed done, instead of letting them go, and hiring illegals instead?

As Hobbit and PMP said it is based on what the market will bear. If I as a business owner can hire one person to do a job at $1/hour or another at $10/hour and still get the job done and keep my customers happy, I am darn sure going to hire the guy at $1.

Minnimum wage laws are good in that they help to prevent the employer from going out and hiring people at lower wages because we all know there are people out there who will work for less. However, they do tend to set an artifical cap on the labor force as well. It lets the employer hire people at minnimum wage and keep them there because the minute an employee starts complaining that he is not paid enough, there is always another willing to work for minnimum wage.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

As Hobbit and PMP said it is based on what the market will bear. If I as a business owner can hire one person to do a job at $1/hour or another at $10/hour and still get the job done and keep my customers happy, I am darn sure going to hire the guy at $1.

Minnimum wage laws are good in that they help to prevent the employer from going out and hiring people at lower wages because we all know there are people out there who will work for less. However, they do tend to set an artifical cap on the labor force as well. It lets the employer hire people at minnimum wage and keep them there because the minute an employee starts complaining that he is not paid enough, there is always another willing to work for minnimum wage.

Immieand where do the 20 million illegals fit, in to this supposed free market?

[Immanuel]

and where do the 20 million illegals fit, in to this supposed free market?

Exactly where you would think. Those 20 million illegals come in offer to work for less than minnimum wage, get paid "under the table" and take jobs away from people who would do the job at minnimum wage. However, there is a risk for an employer to hire illegals. There can be big fines if they get caught.

Those illegals are also helping to keep cheap labor bound at the "minnimum wage" limit.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Exactly where you would think. Those 20 million illegals come in offer to work for less than minnimum wage, get paid "under the table" and take jobs away from people who would do the job at minnimum wage. However, there is a risk for an employer to hire illegals. There can be big fines if they get caught.

Those illegals are also helping to keep cheap labor bound at the "minnimum wage" limit.

Immieagreed, but i don't think there would be 20 million of the illegals here if there were such grave consequences to the employer....

[Immanuel]

agreed, but i don't think there would be 20 million of the illegals here if there were such grave consequences to the employer....

Not sure what you mean here.

The problem is the enforcement of immigration laws sucks. Employers can get away with hiring illegals because there is no enforcement. Increase the risk to the employer and the number of illegals being hired will drop.

Immie

[mrg666]

or to make up the balance the comany tries to pass it on to it's customers ,
they wont wear the increase they go bust .
or the customers do wear it etc etc and we end up paying more on the high street ( or bills ) , thus defeating the object of a minimum wage .
or basicly screw up the economy

[JohnDoe]

Not sure what you mean here.

The problem is the enforcement of immigration laws sucks. Employers can get away with hiring illegals because there is no enforcement. Increase the risk to the employer and the number of illegals being hired will drop.

Immie i got it from your comment below immie...


Originally Posted by Immanuel
Exactly where you would think. Those 20 million illegals come in offer to work for less than minnimum wage, get paid "under the table" and take jobs away from people who would do the job at minnimum wage. However, there is a risk for an employer to hire illegals. There can be big fines if they get caught.

Those illegals are also helping to keep cheap labor bound at the "minnimum wage" limit.

[JohnDoe]

I am uncertain if people realize that all of those employers paying their employees a miniscule minimum wage, puts the burden of these workers on to the tax payer, while the employers reap the benefits of cheap labor.

People getting paid poorly are ALL eligible to receive benefits from us, the tax payers... we give them tax credits for taxes they never had to pay, we pay their healthcare when they get sick and their kids get sick, we even pay for their kids education, both lower grades and college, we pay for daycare for them, and we pay for food for them through food stamps that they would qualify for...

This is unfair to the tax payers and a free profitable ride for the employer.

[Hobbit]

and where do the 20 million illegals fit, in to this supposed free market?

The 20 million illegals disrupt the free market, as they're not competing on the same scale as American workers. When an employer hires illegally, he doesn't have to pay any payroll taxes, and since the illegal doesn't pay any taxes, either, he can accept a lesser gross salary and take home the same pay as an American worker.

Legal immigrants, on the other hand, often best American workers in the marketplace because of the lengths they're willing to go to for their careers.

[Hobbit]

I am uncertain if people realize that all of those employers paying their employees a miniscule minimum wage, puts the burden of these workers on to the tax payer, while the employers reap the benefits of cheap labor.

People getting paid poorly are ALL eligible to receive benefits from us, the tax payers... we give them tax credits for taxes they never had to pay, we pay their healthcare when they get sick and their kids get sick, we even pay for their kids education, both lower grades and college, we pay for daycare for them, and we pay for food for them through food stamps that they would qualify for...

This is unfair to the tax payers and a free profitable ride for the employer.

That, too, is a disruption of the free market. If these handout programs for the poor were eliminated, we'd no longer have tax-subsidized poverty and the market would adjust to where it should be.

[Immanuel]

I am uncertain if people realize that all of those employers paying their employees a miniscule minimum wage, puts the burden of these workers on to the tax payer, while the employers reap the benefits of cheap labor.

People getting paid poorly are ALL eligible to receive benefits from us, the tax payers... we give them tax credits for taxes they never had to pay, we pay their healthcare when they get sick and their kids get sick, we even pay for their kids education, both lower grades and college, we pay for daycare for them, and we pay for food for them through food stamps that they would qualify for...

This is unfair to the tax payers and a free profitable ride for the employer.

That is right... blame the employer for trying to run a business. The employer is always evil and should be responsible for providing for all of the poor.

All employers should do their best to lose money. If they don't they are not helping society (aka socialism) enough.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

That is right... blame the employer for trying to run a business. The employer is always evil and should be responsible for providing for all of the poor.

All employers should do their best to lose money. If they don't they are not helping society (aka socialism) enough.

Immie?????????????

So you believe that us tax payers SHOULD be paying these people that work for these businesses the benefits that their employer does not....so that these employers can add a buck to their own personal pockets?

interesting that you would take that stance....

I don't see it as being a free and fair market, when this happens....

We have employers/businesses that are forced to pay the benefits because the free market demands it to get workers, while there are other businesses that just push the whole thing off on to the tax payers.

That is not a fair playing field for those in business, nor is it fair to us, the tax payers.

jd

[Hobbit]

?????????????

So you believe that us tax payers SHOULD be paying these people that work for these businesses the benefits that their employer does not....so that these employers can add a buck to their own personal pockets?

interesting that you would take that stance....

I don't see it as being a free and fair market, when this happens....

We have employers/businesses that are forced to pay the benefits because the free market demands it to get workers, while there are other businesses that just push the whole thing off on to the tax payers.

That is not a fair playing field for those in business, nor is it fair to us, the tax payers.

jd

I'd blame government for that. I say let the employee and employer work out a contract like adults, and let them decide what benefits the employee will get, rather than having a government mandate of benefits and then pick up the slack with money that is forcefully confiscated from hard working citizens.

[Immanuel]

?????????????

So you believe that us tax payers SHOULD be paying these people that work for these businesses the benefits that their employer does not....so that these employers can add a buck to their own personal pockets?

interesting that you would take that stance....

I don't see it as being a free and fair market, when this happens....

We have employers/businesses that are forced to pay the benefits because the free market demands it to get workers, while there are other businesses that just push the whole thing off on to the tax payers.

That is not a fair playing field for those in business, nor is it fair to us, the tax payers.

jd

It is you, the liberal, that believes the government should be paying those benefits. It is you, the liberal, that force all the social policies down the throats of American Society.

And yes... I do believe the US Taxpayer should in his/her generosity assist those who are in need with things such as food, shelter and clothing. So, I do have some liberal tendencies and to be honest with you... I AM DARNED PROUD OF THAT regardless of what you say.

I do not believe that the employer should be held accountable for what the market will bare. On my own, I will do what I can for the employee, but YOU LIBERALS should not force me to do that.

{rant off}

Immie

[JohnDoe]

It is you, the liberal, that believes the government should be paying those benefits. It is you, the liberal, that force all the social policies down the throats of American Society.

And yes... I do believe the US Taxpayer should in his/her generosity assist those who are in need with things such as food, shelter and clothing. So, I do have some liberal tendencies and to be honest with you... I AM DARNED PROUD OF THAT regardless of what you say.

I do not believe that the employer should be held accountable for what the market will bare. On my own, I will do what I can for the employee, but YOU LIBERALS should not force me to do that.


{rant off}

Immie


I don't understand your last paragraph...specifically your first sentence, Immie, could you please explain it?

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

I think that is an absolute fallacy. There is NOTHING that prevents the employer from raising wages with the minimum wage out there, and guess what....for the most part they haven't, and they still search for means to pay employees less than the minimum, like hiring illegals.

There is no loyalty to their employees at this level in the "market Place", not as far as I have seen.

jd

It doesn't matter that nothing prevents him from raising wages.....the factor that matters is that there is nothing to give him an incentive to raising it.....he doesn't have to increase his pay because he knows that every other employer out there who is seeking low end labor is ALSO paying the same pay.....the law has created a situation in which he doesn't need to compete for labor until there are no warm bodies left looking for work.....

[JohnDoe]

It doesn't matter that nothing prevents him from raising wages.....the factor that matters is that there is nothing to give him an incentive to raising it.....he doesn't have to increase his pay because he knows that every other employer out there who is seeking low end labor is ALSO paying the same pay.....the law has created a situation in which he doesn't need to compete for labor until there are no warm bodies left looking for work.....I don't discount the logic behind this PMP...

I just know that HISTORY of the past, before the 40 hour work week and other labor laws instituted, we were WORSE OFF because the employers did take advantage of people needing to put food on their table and closthes on their back, even if it were only rags...

instead, with these changes, we ended up becoming the economic powerhouse of the WORLD, with the biggest middle class in the WORLD, which is a good thing, imo.

jd

[Immanuel]

I don't understand your last paragraph...specifically your first sentence, Immie, could you please explain it?

jd

You consistantly blame the employer. You make the employer (as you did in this very thread) out to be the bad guy in everything they do.

Immie

[HotPinkConsevative]

What's wrong with you JD? I mean my Mom's high school prof. sounds a lot like you - and he said that the marx system is the way to go, and that America would truly be great if it was a communist country!

[Classact]

YOU don't seem to understand GREED, if the businesses could pay a dollar an hour for the help they would, so that those at the top can make their huge salaries. The 20 million illegals working in our country today is a sign of the greed the businesses have....and HOW the supposed free market can be taken advantage of with illegal means, instead of paying what the free market calls for, for the workers imo.

Also, I don't know of any unions for minimum wage workers, do you?
jdAnyone who works for minimum wage is admitting that if the employer could pay less he/she would. It is nothing to do with greed, employers are human beings and they only hire people because they need work done. They do this because they want to make profit. Why does the government need to set a baseline for income that you and a worker might agree to work at? If the employer only offered a dollar and and the worker accepted it then what is the problem? The employer needs labor and if he finds good workers he would like to keep those employees if they are making him profits. To protect his training investment in the employee he will take market actions to compete with other employers that may try to steal his employees.

People who hire illegal workers should be deported with the illegals or put in jail just after forfeiting their business/farm.

[PostmodernProphet]

What's wrong with you JD? I mean my Mom's high school prof. sounds a lot like you - and he said that the marx system is the way to go, and that America would truly be great if it was a communist country!

by the way, you post very well for someone who's mother is still in high school.....

[JohnDoe]

You consistantly blame the employer. You make the employer (as you did in this very thread) out to be the bad guy in everything they do.

Immie
exactly HOW did I do that Immie, any MORESO than you just did?

sheesh, two faced!!! It is okay for you to say it but not for me?

jd

[HotPinkConsevative]

exactly HOW did I do that Immie, any MORESO than you just did?

sheesh, two faced!!! It is okay for you to say it but not for me?

jd

Not that I agree with you on just about anything that you have said, but I must agree that you on that- everyone has a right to way what they think no matter what

[Immanuel]

exactly HOW did I do that Immie, any MORESO than you just did?

sheesh, two faced!!! It is okay for you to say it but not for me?

jd

I have not blamed the employer at all. It is only you in this thread that thinks that employers are evil human beings.

How did you do that? Here is one of your posts:


YOU don't seem to understand GREED, if the businesses could pay a dollar an hour for the help they would, so that those at the top can make their huge salaries. The 20 million illegals working in our country today is a sign of the greed the businesses have....and HOW the supposed free market can be taken advantage of with illegal means, instead of paying what the free market calls for, for

Are you going to tell me that is not making the employer out to be evil?

Want more?


we were WORSE OFF because the employers did take advantage of people needing to put food on their table and closthes on their back, even if it were only rags...

The proof is in the pudding, jd, you make the employer out to be the bad guy every time. This is not the first time we have had this discussion and everytime we have it, you blame the employer.

Talk about two-faced... you were an employer when you worked. Bet you cut every dime you could off your costs too.

Now, would you find one post where I blamed the employer? Good luck.


Immie

[JohnDoe]

I have not blamed the employer at all. It is only you in this thread that thinks that employers are evil human beings.

How did you do that? Here is one of your posts:



Are you going to tell me that is not making the employer out to be evil?

Want more?



The proof is in the pudding, jd, you make the employer out to be the bad guy every time. This is not the first time we have had this discussion and everytime we have it, you blame the employer.

Talk about two-faced... you were an employer when you worked. Bet you cut every dime you could off your costs too.

Now, would you find one post where I blamed the employer? Good luck.


Immie

yeahhhhhhhh, I said those two things and you said as much yourself... you may not have used the word greed, but that's about it.

and I stick by those two statements because they are TRUE, and the first is why we have the 20 million illegals here today, because of the EMPLOYER, breaking the LAW to get cheaper labor than what the free market in the USA would demand imo.
jd

[JohnDoe]

Definition of greed:

Greed is the selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism. (People who do not view unconstrained acquisitiveness as a vice will generally use a word other than greed, which has strong negative connotations.) Greed denotes desire to acquire wealth or possessions beyond the the needs of the individual especially when this accumulation of possession denies others legitimate needs or access to those or other resources. For example, amassing a large collection of sea shells would not be considered greed, unless in doing so, the needs of others was jepordized. Essential to the concept of greed is the awareness that the needs of others are denied, thus rivalrous goods are exemplify greed while non-rivalous goods may not. Greed also often involves using wealth to gain power over others, sometimes by denying wealth or power.

Some desire to increase one's wealth is nearly universal and acceptable in any culture, but this simple want is not considered greed. Greed is the extreme form of this desire, especially where one desires things simply for the sake of owning them (such as the desire to have great amounts of money not to purchase objects, but possession or the money is an end in itself). Greed typically entails acquiring material possessions at the expense of other person's welfare (for example, a father buying himself a new car rather than fix the roof of his family's home) or otherwise reflect flawed priorities.

Coveting another person's goods is usually called envy, a word commonly confused with jealousy. The two words denote opposite forms of greed. We may envy and wish to have the possessions or qualities of another, but we jealously guard the possessions or qualities we believe we have and refuse to share these with others. Greed for food or drink, combined with excessive indulgence in them, is called gluttony. Excessive greed for and indulgence in sex is called lust, although this term no longer carries as negative connotations as it once did.

Greed is sometimes represented by the frog.

A woodcut by Ugo da Carpi, is entitled "Hercules Chasing Avarice from the Temple of the Muses." [1]. Thomas Aquinas metaphorically described the sin of Avarice as "Mammon being carried up from Hell by a wolf, coming to inflame the human heart with Greed".

Proponents of laissez-faire capitalism sometimes argue that greed should not be considered a negative trait and should instead be embraced, as they claim that greed is a profoundly benevolent force in human affairs, as well as a necessary foundation for the capitalist system. Critics have argued this definition confuses greed with self-interest, which can be benign.

[Yurt]

maybe im clueless but what does this have to do with religion or ethics?

Actually, many think it is an "ethical" issue.

[Yurt]

I think that is an absolute fallacy. There is NOTHING that prevents the employer from raising wages with the minimum wage out there, and guess what....for the most part they haven't, and they still search for means to pay employees less than the minimum, like hiring illegals.

There is no loyalty to their employees at this level in the "market Place", not as far as I have seen.

jd

where is the incentive to raise wages when you know the government will FORCE you?

"most part" sheesh, you love these ethereal "authorities"

loyalty? WTFC. Business are NOT required to be loyal. If they want to survive, they will. But who are we to command this? Should the state run our businesses? Look at Walmart, they are not now gaining like they used to because they admit they need to treat their employees better and treat the community they move into better. For them: the market spoke.

[JohnDoe]

where is the incentive to raise wages when you know the government will FORCE you?

"most part" sheesh, you love these ethereal "authorities"

loyalty? WTFC. Business are NOT required to be loyal. If they want to survive, they will. But who are we to command this? Should the state run our businesses? Look at Walmart, they are not now gaining like they used to because they admit they need to treat their employees better and treat the community they move into better. For them: the market spoke.

WHEN did I ''command it'' yurt? geez louise!!! I am just DISCUSSING IT....

you expressed the same thing with this comment of yours:


Business are NOT required to be loyal. If they want to survive, they will.

and yes, the market did change the ways of walmart, they are making great strides in treating their employees better BECAUSE of the free market's voice, and guess whose voice complaining eventually got heard, mine and the others that spoke out when something seemed unfair or amiss....

i take pride in looking at what is going on around me, and trying to see clearly when doing it.

it is not a philosophy that i speak out against or that drives my opinion, but reality that i see.

jane

[Immanuel]

yeahhhhhhhh, I said those two things and you said as much yourself... you may not have used the word greed, but that's about it.

and I stick by those two statements because they are TRUE, and the first is why we have the 20 million illegals here today, because of the EMPLOYER, breaking the LAW to get cheaper labor than what the free market in the USA would demand imo.
jd

I note that you cannot point to one thing that I said that the employer did wrong.

I did not even insinuate that the employer was wrong for trying to save money. That has nothing to do with greed. It has everything to do with running a business.

You are the one that claimed the employer was evil for trying to do business, not me.

Immie

[Immanuel]

WHEN did I ''command it'' yurt? geez louise!!! I am just DISCUSSING IT....

you expressed the same thing with this comment of yours:



and yes, the market did change the ways of walmart, they are making great strides in treating their employees better BECAUSE of the free market's voice, and guess whose voice complaining eventually got heard, mine and the others that spoke out when something seemed unfair or amiss....

i take pride in looking at what is going on around me, and trying to see clearly when doing it.

it is not a philosophy that i speak out against or that drives my opinion, but reality that i see.

jane

You didn't command it, but basically you called them the devil's spawn.

Those evil, evil employers. They are so evil for trying to make a profit. Guess what... it is the employers of this world that drive our economy. Without them we'd all be in caves.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

I note that you cannot point to one thing that I said that the employer did wrong.

I did not even insinuate that the employer was wrong for trying to save money. That has nothing to do with greed. It has everything to do with running a business.

You are the one that claimed the employer was evil for trying to do business, not me.

Immie
I disagree. The acts of the employers to save money, even if it means breaking the law, as with hiring illegal immigrants....was what I took as you complaining about it....but if you did not mean it that way then fine Immanuel, no biggie.

and GOOD MORNING, ya little turd head!!!

jd

[JohnDoe]

You didn't command it, but basically you called them the devil's spawn.

Those evil, evil employers. They are so evil for trying to make a profit. Guess what... it is the employers of this world that drive our economy. Without them we'd all be in caves.

Immie
What a bunch of made up hogwash. For you to read all of that in my statements is a REACH...immie. I have no intentions of going down that road, so debate it with yourself, k?

jd

[Immanuel]

What a bunch of made up hogwash. For you to read all of that in my statements is a REACH...immie. I have no intentions of going down that road, so debate it with yourself, k?

jd

Why not? It is what you have said so many times in the past at least that is the way you come across.

Immie

[HotPinkConsevative]

JB you're right, Mr. Slate doesn't have to fire any of his employees, but he doesnt' have to become more efficient either, he could just raise prices, of course everbody decided to raise thier prices so they wouldn't go out of bussiness. So Fred isn't actually getting more money, because now everything is more expensive then it was before, in fact he may almost be poorer now, because if everone raises the prices by one doller, yes you get a raise by one doller but that's only one doller! when everything is more expensive that's not that much