The minimum wage machine

[Zoney]

I absolutely agree you need an education to advance and then possibly make more money.  I have an education, I graduated High School, with a D average.  That was the last time I went to school.  While I was in High School I went to work for a motorcycle store and the owner gave me an education on how to assemble and prep new bikes. Then I went in to the Air Force and they gave me an education to be an Aircraft Controller.  When i got out there was a new industry in Phoenix that was offering these new fangled things called waterbeds.  The owner educated me on how to deliver, assemble and install them.  Later he gave me an education on how to sell them and I became a salesperson.  I read books, I took courses and trained myself to be a professional salesperson.  After that I went to work for a motorcycle store and the sales manager gave me an education on how to sell them.  I read a lot.  I read everything, I read every night for an hour before sleeping, mostly Science Fiction.  That has given me an education on the English language.  The only TV I watch is science and history shows which have given me an education on Science and History.

My point is, you do not have to go to college for an education.  In many, if not most cases it's a waste of time and money but you do have to pay attention, be reasonably intelligent, have the ability to learn, and apply yourself, strive to be better.

If you are working for low pay,(I won't use the term "Minimum Wage"), tough.  You do not have my sympathy.  No matter what job you have, there is something to learn from it.  If you still have low pay after you have been working for awhile, mostly likely you are an idiot.  I'm glad you aren't making enough to have a family and pass on those defective genes.  I'm glad you are working for cheap so I can buy a cheap hamburger.  It's not my fault, I'm not responsible for the fact that you are an idiot, or worse yet, you are just lazy.

[PR3D4TOR]

Also I see a lot of people make a direct connection between the value of their labor and the value of the product they help make. As in if the company they work for increases its profits they deserve more pay. This reasoning is tantamount to economic dissonance. The value of your labor is determined by the supply of that labor from the work force and the demand of that labor from employers. The value of the product you help make is determined by the demand of that product by the consumers and the supply of the product from producers. There is no direct link, although a higher demand of the product may lead to higher production, which in turn increases demand for labor.

For example: If you're working on the factory floor assembling Ford Mustangs and suddenly the demand for that vehicle skyrockets (people like it), Ford can increase their asking price, increasing their profits. That does not increase the value of your labor. You're still just bolting a dashboard into place. The value of your labor is only determined by how many other guys and gals are willing to bolt dashboards into place, and how much Ford and other auto makers need people to do that.

Labor vs. creative labor: The skinny, vegan dude or dudette who designed the Mustang's good looks, and the highly skilled and educated engineers who made it run so good that people are willing to pay more for it... The creative minds that innovated and improved the product. Their creative labor would be in more demand and thus more valuable. They could demand more pay or Ford would risk losing them to a competitor. However, their careers also ride on the commercial success of their creativity. If the Mustang had flopped they might find themselves sleeping under a bridge. No risk no gain.

[pembquist]

I think you are confusing the value of any given unit of labor with its market price.

[PR3D4TOR]

No, just the general morality behind it.

[pembquist]

No really you are confusing the value of a unit of labor with its market price, morality has nothing to do with it.

[PR3D4TOR]

I'm not a believer of the labor theory of value...

[FBKampfer]

My ideology? lol

Regardless of what my "ideology" is or isn't, what you posted is bogus economics. It simply doesn't work like that. Forcing employers to pay more for the same work does not generate more wealth.

Look it up. It's happened twice now, and it'll happen again if we let it. People are not responsible when it comes to the good of all. Clearly there will be exceptions, but history proves that rule.

Lassiez-Fair economics showed what an awful idea you have. Thankfully the people don't seem willing to let the country go down the drain to try the same thing twice.

And lastly you assume we need more wealth. All we need is a more equitable distribution of what we have. We need to work for the people, not profits.

[PR3D4TOR]

I'm sorry, but "a more equitable distribution of what we have" sounds like a euphemism for theft.

[Zoney]

I'm sorry, but "a more equitable distribution of what we have" sounds like a euphemism for theft.

It sounds like communism to me, "To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities".

[DmonSlyr]

Also I see a lot of people make a direct connection between the value of their labor and the value of the product they help make. As in if the company they work for increases its profits they deserve more pay. This reasoning is tantamount to economic dissonance. The value of your labor is determined by the supply of that labor from the work force and the demand of that labor from employers. The value of the product you help make is determined by the demand of that product by the consumers and the supply of the product from producers. There is no direct link, although a higher demand of the product may lead to higher production, which in turn increases demand for labor.

For example: If you're working on the factory floor assembling Ford Mustangs and suddenly the demand for that vehicle skyrockets (people like it), Ford can increase their asking price, increasing their profits. That does not increase the value of your labor. You're still just bolting a dashboard into place. The value of your labor is only determined by how many other guys and gals are willing to bolt dashboards into place, and how much Ford and other auto makers need people to do that.

Labor vs. creative labor: The skinny, vegan dude or dudette who designed the Mustang's good looks, and the highly skilled and educated engineers who made it run so good that people are willing to pay more for it... The creative minds that innovated and improved the product. Their creative labor would be in more demand and thus more valuable. They could demand more pay or Ford would risk losing them to a competitor. However, their careers also ride on the commercial success of their creativity. If the Mustang had flopped they might find themselves sleeping under a bridge. No risk no gain.

My question is, if those people spend 9-10 hours a day working their tulips off, even if it is screwing doors into position. Should they be provided a living wage for their efforts spending that much time doing work for that company? They won't be able to get another job, they won't be able to get a better education, they are stuck in the same skill level for the majority of their life, but we need those kinds of people right? So do we provide those people with adequate compensation to be able to live a decent life? Or do we just expect that everyone will go on and get better skills even though they cannot afford it?

And if they do get a better education and come back for a 5 dollar raise. Was it worth it? This is what the majority of most underemployed college educated students are facing right now. 

[SIK1]

My question is, if those people spend 9-10 hours a day working their tulips off, even if it is screwing doors into position. Should they be provided a living wage for their efforts spending that much time doing work for that company? They won't be able to get another job, they won't be able to get a better education, they are stuck in the same skill level for the majority of their life, but we need those kinds of people right? So do we provide those people with adequate compensation to be able to live a decent life? Or do we just expect everyone that everyone will go on and get better skills even though they cannot afford it?

Why can't they get a better job, or advance their education?
They are only stuck because they allow themselves to be stuck. At one point in my life I worked two full time jobs and went to school, because I wanted to better myself. You can choose to be a victim, or you can choose not to be one. It is up to you.

[Triton28]

I've never seen anyone who was worth more than minimum wage actually sit around and get paid minimum wage for very long, so I've never really seen the issue with raising it.  I seriously cannot think of one person who I worked with in fast food joints and stuff that didn't get offers for more money and more responsibility if they showed the slightest bit of motivation.  That even includes me, and I came to work high all the time... lol.  I still remember my manager at Pizza Hut suggesting I apply for an assistant manager position because of my obvious talents and work ethic.  Oddly enough, I think being high for that conversation actually kept me from laughing. 

[PR3D4TOR]

What's the definition of "a living wage?"

[zack1234]

Having enough you pay your AH subscription every month.

If i had £60 million i would be like Elton John.

[DmonSlyr]

See Rule #14