|
since federal minimum wage increased
|
View this Thread in Original format
| eFeKz |
from $5.15/hr to $7.25, an increase of 140%, those individuals who make over minimum wage but are paid hourly should too get a 140% increase in pay raise as well, to reflect the standard of living increase.
for example, if you're making say 8 bucks an hour, it would make sense that you should be paid $11.68/hr now.
dont you think?
i mean i work at best buy. i get paid 12.50 an hour which isnt that good of a wage.
but closing the gap between fast food worker and techno geek?
doesnt seem fair. |
|
|
| eFeKz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Marc Summers
:rolleyes: |
i guess im wrong. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
There are two big flaws with your idea...
1) You presume that the increase in minimum wage is reflective of the value of minimum wage earner's labour and if their labour has become more valuable so has everyone else's. First, it is quite likely that the minimum wage is significantly below what the value of the labourer's work is therefore the increase likely represents a move toward that value rather then an increase in the value itself. Second, the state recognizing an increase in the value of one labourer's work does not necessitate that all labourers work has become more valuable.
2) Giving all labourers a 140% pay increase is not only unfeasable but ultimately pointless. If one were to legislate an increase in wages of that magnitude across the board it would lead to massive inflation as employers would need to offset the wages somehow. It is likely that the inflationary reaction to such a legislative move would be of greater magnitude then the wage increase itself. So, lets say wages increase 140% across the board and inflation jumps to 150% to compensate... essentially you've just legislated a 10% real wage cut to all labourers. |
|
|
| eFeKz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
There are two big flaws with your idea...
1) You presume that the increase in minimum wage is reflective of the value of minimum wage earner's labour and if their labour has become more valuable so has everyone else's. First, it is quite likely that the minimum wage is significantly below what the value of the labourer's work is therefore the increase likely represents a move toward that value rather then an increase in the value itself. Second, the state recognizing an increase in the value of one labourer's work does not necessitate that all labourers work has become more valuable.
2) Giving all labourers a 140% pay increase is not only unfeasable but ultimately pointless. If one were to legislate an increase in wages of that magnitude across the board it would lead to massive inflation as employers would need to offset the wages somehow. It is likely that the inflationary reaction to such a legislative move would be of greater magnitude then the wage increase itself. So, lets say wages increase 140% across the board and inflation jumps to 150% to compensate... essentially you've just legislated a 10% real wage cut to all labourers. |
that makes sense, thanks for taking the time. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by eFeKz
that makes sense, thanks for taking the time. |
no problem, that's what I'm here for. |
|
|
| UWM |
| Has anyone ever told you you make the worst threads in the COR? |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
I never really got raising the minimum wage either. It's obviously going to cause inflation and the extra money laborers make will have to be used to pay the increased price on the things they bought before the increase.
The only people who benefit is already privileged teenagers who live at home with their parents and don't have to support themselves. The people who were already supporting a family won't benefit much at all...if anything it may end up making life tougher for them. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| i rather the poor stay poor thanks. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
I never really got raising the minimum wage either. It's obviously going to cause inflation and the extra money laborers make will have to be used to pay the increased price on the things they bought before the increase.
The only people who benefit is already privileged teenagers who live at home with their parents and don't have to support themselves. The people who were already supporting a family won't benefit much at all...if anything it may end up making life tougher for them. |
You missed out on the fact that the government stands to benefit greatly. Now they get more income tax money from more people. :) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by eFeKz
from $5.15/hr to $7.25, an increase of 140%, those individuals who make over minimum wage but are paid hourly should too get a 140% increase in pay raise as well, to reflect the standard of living increase.
for example, if you're making say 8 bucks an hour, it would make sense that you should be paid $11.68/hr now.
dont you think?
i mean i work at best buy. i get paid 12.50 an hour which isnt that good of a wage.
but closing the gap between fast food worker and techno geek?
doesnt seem fair. |
actually, it is a 29% increase.
I thought about a 29% increase, but I guess that'll just be my minimum asking wage for my next job. |
|
|
|
|
