Income inequality
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25363
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Well that IS the point.
Without a minimum wage standard .. companies and small businesses alike can and do exploit human assets. ie Employ illegal immigrants and people deserve for work of all kinds.
Sure people can strive to better themselves and no doubt will ... but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be paid an adequate minimum.
Its not about lining losers pockets with undeserved gold .. its about ensuring a person receives a fair days pay for a fair days work.
Without a minimum wage standard .. companies and small businesses alike can and do exploit human assets. ie Employ illegal immigrants and people deserve for work of all kinds.
Sure people can strive to better themselves and no doubt will ... but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be paid an adequate minimum.
Its not about lining losers pockets with undeserved gold .. its about ensuring a person receives a fair days pay for a fair days work.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
A fair day's pay for a fair pay's work is generally settled by the market; the absolute minimum is set by the government, either at the Federal or State level. If my employer thinks my labor is worth $18 but I think I am worth $22 then either I accept $18 or I keep looking until I find $22. Realistically, I would accept the $18 *until* I found $22, at which point I leave for the better offer; the numbers are not exact but that is where I am right now--have accepted one number but looking for something higher.Skyweir wrote:its about ensuring a person receives a fair days pay for a fair days work.
The responsibility is mine to seek a higher pay rate, though, not the government's to force onto an employer.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:A fair day's pay for a fair pay's work is generally settled by the market; the absolute minimum is set by the government, either at the Federal or State level. If my employer thinks my labor is worth $18 but I think I am worth $22 then either I accept $18 or I keep looking until I find $22. Realistically, I would accept the $18 *until* I found $22, at which point I leave for the better offer; the numbers are not exact but that is where I am right now--have accepted one number but looking for something higher.Skyweir wrote:its about ensuring a person receives a fair days pay for a fair days work.
The responsibility is mine to seek a higher pay rate, though, not the government's to force onto an employer.
^^^^^
This is true.
Also let us not forget that employment is a mutually agreed situation. When I started or considering starting a job I know the rate per hour. If I do not like that rate I either should not take that job or if in that job realize that I agreed to rate upon hiring and increase my skills, training, education, leadership or whatever it takes to rise to a position that pays me more. It is not the company's fault that I may have taken the job out of pure desperation just for money. And as others have noted up thread minimal wage jobs were never intended to be surviving income but rather supplemental income for retired, students, younger people in general and people needing second jobs. Mostly they are lower skilled/easily replaceable positions - which is why the market can bear paying that position at a lower wage.
Not every person is going to understand you and that's okay. They have a right to their opinion and you have every right to ignore it.
- Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61735
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
I don't disagree with teh above, or with Hashi's post.
However, I do think it is too simplistic.
If you're struggling to eat or pay rent or feed your children, you will be desperate, and you will take whatever you can.
Yes, ideally you could use whatever breathing space that gives you (but it may not be much) to both try and improve yourself, and find a better job, but that pre-supposes that such opportunities are available.
It also plays into the zero-sum game thinking, because there are more people trying for those opportunities than there are opportunities.
I refer everybody back to my earlier posted link to the study showing how people in the US tend to seriously over-estimate socio-economic mobility in their country.
At the end of the day, the government has to both ensure that the climate is favourable for the creation of opportunities, and prevent the exploitation of those who are desperate.
"You don't like what you get paid? Find another job!" is just too simplistic. It's not always (or hardly ever), that straightforward.
--A
However, I do think it is too simplistic.
If you're struggling to eat or pay rent or feed your children, you will be desperate, and you will take whatever you can.
Yes, ideally you could use whatever breathing space that gives you (but it may not be much) to both try and improve yourself, and find a better job, but that pre-supposes that such opportunities are available.
It also plays into the zero-sum game thinking, because there are more people trying for those opportunities than there are opportunities.
I refer everybody back to my earlier posted link to the study showing how people in the US tend to seriously over-estimate socio-economic mobility in their country.
At the end of the day, the government has to both ensure that the climate is favourable for the creation of opportunities, and prevent the exploitation of those who are desperate.
"You don't like what you get paid? Find another job!" is just too simplistic. It's not always (or hardly ever), that straightforward.
--A
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25363
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Agreed Av ..
but I go further in my views than yours.
Respectfully, a fair days pay for a fair days work is never fair left to the labour market.
Left to the market its what the employer considers fair and thats not necessarily reflective of the actual labour required. It is giving the market the freedom to exploit employees.
Where an hourly rate is SET .. when an employer advertises for candidates they usually disclose the hourly rate.
What is fair is often ... at least here a matter of negotiation as part of the workplace agreement .. between the employer and employee or employee representative. And it must be defensibly fair and reasonable to both parties.
Employers of course will promote their own interests.. ie maximisation of profit, reducing expenses etc.
Employees of course will want to promote their interests .. but generally are not in a position to do so.
Unless they are of course in a position to do so ... ie if they possess needed skills or expertise then they have something to negotiate with.
If youre seeking unskilled work then you likely dont have any bargaining power at all.
Such is at the mercy of the employer ... without a minimum wage standard .. any employer can exploit the market, its employees ... and many do.
A gf married an American and they lived in the US for some 6 years. He worked in a steel refinery .. apparently the employer was not required to ensure appropriate occupational health and safety measures were in place to safeguard from injury and death. The pay was pathetic .. the hours were long .. no overtime, and high injuries. He was seriously injured twice ... the company washed their hands of him. He incurred medical expenses .. and need drove him back to work in similar work ..
They eventually moved here.
Here none of that is legal. Employers owe their employees a duty of care .. that means they must comply with minimum wage and occupational health and safety standards. If an injury occurs in the workplace the employer is responsible for medical costs.
Here there are legal recourses one can take to ensure your ... lets say rights or entitlements.
Ironically enough ... one of the reasons our legislation came into effect was to prevent the exploitation of immigrants.
but I go further in my views than yours.
Respectfully, a fair days pay for a fair days work is never fair left to the labour market.
Left to the market its what the employer considers fair and thats not necessarily reflective of the actual labour required. It is giving the market the freedom to exploit employees.
Where an hourly rate is SET .. when an employer advertises for candidates they usually disclose the hourly rate.
What is fair is often ... at least here a matter of negotiation as part of the workplace agreement .. between the employer and employee or employee representative. And it must be defensibly fair and reasonable to both parties.
Employers of course will promote their own interests.. ie maximisation of profit, reducing expenses etc.
Employees of course will want to promote their interests .. but generally are not in a position to do so.
Unless they are of course in a position to do so ... ie if they possess needed skills or expertise then they have something to negotiate with.
If youre seeking unskilled work then you likely dont have any bargaining power at all.
Such is at the mercy of the employer ... without a minimum wage standard .. any employer can exploit the market, its employees ... and many do.
A gf married an American and they lived in the US for some 6 years. He worked in a steel refinery .. apparently the employer was not required to ensure appropriate occupational health and safety measures were in place to safeguard from injury and death. The pay was pathetic .. the hours were long .. no overtime, and high injuries. He was seriously injured twice ... the company washed their hands of him. He incurred medical expenses .. and need drove him back to work in similar work ..
They eventually moved here.
Here none of that is legal. Employers owe their employees a duty of care .. that means they must comply with minimum wage and occupational health and safety standards. If an injury occurs in the workplace the employer is responsible for medical costs.
Here there are legal recourses one can take to ensure your ... lets say rights or entitlements.
Ironically enough ... one of the reasons our legislation came into effect was to prevent the exploitation of immigrants.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
How, exactly, was this employer able to get out of adhering to OSHA workplace regulations? Although I personally disagree with unions, if he worked in a refinery I am pretty certain there was a union--he didn't sit down with his union rep and say "I am not being paid for the OT I work"?Skyweir wrote:A gf married an American and they lived in the US for some 6 years. He worked in a steel refinery .. apparently the employer was not required to ensure appropriate occupational health and safety measures were in place to safeguard from injury and death. The pay was pathetic .. the hours were long .. no overtime, and high injuries. He was seriously injured twice ... the company washed their hands of him. He incurred medical expenses .. and need drove him back to work in similar work ..
We can always find individual cases where things do not work out well.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
If all that happened in the mid 1980s then, yes, there were still many employers who were skirting around the laws regarding workplace safety. Some still do today, of course, but it was much more prevalent back then.
There are agencies to which employees may go to address various forms of workplace abuse. Anyone these days who complains that they cannot locate those agencies, whether by phone or e-mail, is lying...unless they really don't know how to use teh Interwebz.
There are agencies to which employees may go to address various forms of workplace abuse. Anyone these days who complains that they cannot locate those agencies, whether by phone or e-mail, is lying...unless they really don't know how to use teh Interwebz.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
- Skyweir
- Lord of Light
- Posts: 25363
- Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
- Location: Australia
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
Its good to have such institutions in place to reinforce occupational, health, safety and fair work practices.
Particularly in no and low skilled work like various low paid roles in the steel, mining, etc industries where the work itself is physical labour intense and inherently high risk workplaces.
Particularly in no and low skilled work like various low paid roles in the steel, mining, etc industries where the work itself is physical labour intense and inherently high risk workplaces.
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
EZBoard SURVIVOR
- Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19634
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
- SoulBiter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9274
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Its entirely more complex than that. That is why above, I asked what is a 'fair' minimum wage. But added to that, "who gets to decide?"
So lets say we change the min wage to $20 per hour. On a 40 hour week that's 45K per year. In NY, LA, SF that probably doesnt seem like enough. But in rural areas you would be pretty close to "living high on the hog" and be lower middle class. Thats for doing a job that requires no skills to perform that anyone at an age to work can perform. How does that seem fair to the employer?
So lets go further and say that a min wage of that nature was to be passed. Those making 45K per year that are working skill jobs are going to want their salary boosted to compensate. They are doing skilled jobs that no just anyone can do. Of course if you boost them to $30 per hour... now they are making about 70K per year.... but those doing even higher skilled jobs currently making 70K per year are going to want a boost as well.... Do you see how unsustainable this is? Do you see what that would do to inflation?
So lets say we change the min wage to $20 per hour. On a 40 hour week that's 45K per year. In NY, LA, SF that probably doesnt seem like enough. But in rural areas you would be pretty close to "living high on the hog" and be lower middle class. Thats for doing a job that requires no skills to perform that anyone at an age to work can perform. How does that seem fair to the employer?
So lets go further and say that a min wage of that nature was to be passed. Those making 45K per year that are working skill jobs are going to want their salary boosted to compensate. They are doing skilled jobs that no just anyone can do. Of course if you boost them to $30 per hour... now they are making about 70K per year.... but those doing even higher skilled jobs currently making 70K per year are going to want a boost as well.... Do you see how unsustainable this is? Do you see what that would do to inflation?
- Rawedge Rim
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 5248
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
- Location: Florida
so what it took me 15 years to achieve you should be able to walk in off the street and make the same?Avatar wrote:Maybe the answer is that people making more should be ok with the people making the least getting a bit of an increase, without demanding one for themselves?
--A
So if I spent several thousand dollars going to technical school to learn a trade so that I could make better than low to average pay, and did my apprentiship, I should be content to have the government pass a law that a highschool drop out with little to no skills should make only slightly less than I do?
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper
"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper
"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
- SoulBiter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9274
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
It would devalue the work/skill you put in to make the hourly wage you have and it would disincentive anyone that was going after that specific job to not do that but to instead do a non-skilled job instead since it pays similarly but requires no more effort that showing up for the job. It would be like building a 100K house in a 300K neighborhood. The impact is that it immediately devalues your house value.Avatar wrote:Why? You wouldn't be making any less. Him earning a little more won't disadvantage you in any way.
--A