| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wilko
Germany470 Posts
On June 23 2010 15:00 Skillz_Man wrote: In Alberta minimum wage is $8.80 and my starting wage when I worked at Dairy Queen was $12.00... Damn the situation in the US sucks. In Germany minimum wage isn't even existing | ||
|
Kyhol
Canada2575 Posts
| ||
|
KsBerzerk
Japan105 Posts
also look up ur state one cuz if it's higher than the federal then you'll receive the state minimum wage over the federal | ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1017 Posts
On June 23 2010 14:24 kzn wrote: Barring eugenics/genetic engineering, there will always be people who are worse "people" (for want of a better word) - they will not have the talent/intelligence/strength to do the jobs that pay a lot. They will always be worse off than the people who got lucky in the genetic lottery - and to be sure, this isn't really fair. But when I see proposals that are supposed to change this, they never accept reality. Talk of workers rights and such just makes no sense - these people are not worth being paid more than they are paid, or they would be paid more. If you want to improve their quality of life by improving their pay, someone else, somewhere, has to take a corresponding drop in pay, and thus a drop in quality of life (although the latter drop will not be of corresponding size). I don't think that option is any more fair than the default, but that, at least, is an opinion, and thus something you can just hand to a country with a referendum and see what they say. While I agree that not everyone has the skill or discipline to do a high-paying job, I think that anyone can do a job worth paying minimum wage for. Perhaps in some cases they might need basic training, but that's about it. Things will never be truly fair, but if you get to a stage where the least well off can live a happy and fulfilling life, I think that's good enough. Are you really contending that the masses of people in India and China working below minimum wage aren't good enough workers to deserve it? Seems a tricky position to maintain. I think it's because of structural unfairness/power relations etc, not lack of talent. No need for your eugenics  | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway474 Posts
us evil socialists Talk of workers rights and such just makes no sense - these people are not worth being paid more than they are paid, or they would be paid more. Wow.. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On June 22 2010 10:54 daveydweeb wrote: Fun fact: Australia, with one of the highest minimum wages in the OECD, is also the only OECD country to have avoided recession over the last two years. We also have the lowest unemployment in the developed world. How does it increase the cost of imported goods? Import taxes and tariffs. There is currently a single american company making ironing boards (you know, pressing your clothes to make them neat and stuff). The workers get paid per board made and the factory averages some crazy number. It comes out to like $17 an hour, but it is hard work. They are undercut by chinese factories which have lower costs and significantly lower payroll costs and whose only real expense that is NOT lower then the american factory is shipping. Still, they come out significantly cheaper. To balance this fact, the united states government put some huge import tariff (for dumping, ie. selling something under market value) on the chinese for ironing boards. This tariff is the only reason this factory can survive. Now imagine that the facroty unionized and was required to be paid a certain amount instead of per - item produced. Would a union settle for less then they currently make? Not really. So in turn either the factory cuts profits (who does that), passes the cost onto consumers, and causes the import taxes to go up even more. Not to mention, when paid a guaranteed amount, people don't work as hard. Paying for output makes shittons more sense then paying everybody the same thing no matter what. Another thing I would like to note is that unemployment numbers mean shit all. People might have jobs, but they might not be jobs that matter. Case in point - The economy in america is looking better right? Unemployment is down? More people are getting jobs? WRONG. The economy is just as fucked up as it was before (and even more so) and the only reason that it looks like jobs are being created is because 80% of hte people hired this year were temp jobs for the census that was done. At the end of this year, when people are laid off payrolls the economy will actually look shittier then it actually is because all those same people being hired now (making things look better then they actually are) will be thrown into those unemployment // people losing jobs numbers. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 15:04 Sadist wrote:My point was that they had no talent or skill and yet made a 40 million dollar profit simply because they have the money to do so. Providing capital isnt a skill. Getting a contract for the state police to build a building isnt a skill either. They pay lawyers to handle things like that. One is a real estate guy the other owns the biggest trash collecting business in town. You don't end up with enough money to make $40mil profit without talent or skill. Maybe you inherited enough to do that, but without talent or skill you sure as fuck wont be making profit off of it very much or for very long. Business owners make a disproportionate amount of money compared to their workers. Because they take a disproportionate amount of the risk. And as far as my personal experience......ya data entry and sitting on a computer 8 hrs a day is much harder than bussing tables. Data entry tends to require ~60+wpm, which seems like nothing to us because we spend all our time on computers anyway, but that immediately cuts out a segment of the worst workers from being able to do the job. It requires people to be computer proficient, which cuts out another segment, and it takes focus despite being boring as all fuck. Bussing tables doesn't require any of that. It requires you to be able to perform a memorized set of tasks over and over. It might be more labor intensive, but that isn't the same as harder. Grow up. I hope you arent one of those upper middle class libertarian white kids because you come off as one =) I hope you have more of an argument than the same platitudes Marx spouted decades ago. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 16:04 Tal wrote: While I agree that not everyone has the skill or discipline to do a high-paying job, I think that anyone can do a job worth paying minimum wage for. Perhaps in some cases they might need basic training, but that's about it. Things will never be truly fair, but if you get to a stage where the least well off can live a happy and fulfilling life, I think that's good enough. Its not just a question of "can you do work worth X". Its a question of how much other people will charge to do that work. Its a question of how much of that work needs to be done, and how many workers are able to do it. What about people who are born mentally retarded, or disabled, or with some condition that severely impacts their ability to do work that "normally" isn't hard for people? Certainly, they will have to rely on charity, but shouldn't the option be there for them to work for a supplemental income? Forcing people to hire them at minimum wage doesn't actually accomplish that - it equates to charity, because the employer is paying more than they should. Some people apparently like the feel of working (I confess I don't understand it). It should be up to them if they want to work at lower than minimum wage. Are you really contending that the masses of people in India and China working below minimum wage aren't good enough workers to deserve it? No, but I am contending that if you gave them a choice between working the jobs they work now and not working at all, or working less hours at a higher wage, they would choose to continue with what they're doing now. Some of them might well be tremendously valuable workers, but their location simply doesn't have the infrastructure to let them do what they're best at. This is a tragedy, but its not something we can force other people to pay for. Seems a tricky position to maintain. I think it's because of structural unfairness/power relations etc, not lack of talent. No need for your eugenics It doesn't matter what the distribution of talents looks like. Lets take IQ as an example, even though it doesn't come close to covering a significant part of what is needed in most jobs. IQ is distributed normally around a mean of 100 worldwide (roughly). This means that the vast majority of workers are within one standard deviation of a 100 IQ (which, iirc, roughly correlates to like 85-115 range). Jobs that require one to have an IQ within that range thus have a vast supply of potential workers. Basic supply and demand requires that because of this, the wage paid for that labor will be the wage that meets market equilibrium. There will also be a significant minority of workers who have an IQ in excess of 150 (0.1%? or something tiny like that). For the sake of the analogy, lets assume that there's a job that cannot be done by people with less than 150 IQ. The pool of workers who can do this job is minuscule compared to the previous job, and thus basic supply and demand requires that the equilibrium wage for this work will be much higher (unless the demand for that job's output is much lower). It doesn't really matter what abilities/talents we're dealing with. It doesn't even matter if you're right that there's a structural unfairness - that will simply pile on top of the default unfairness of the genetic lottery, which will remain even if you fix the structural issues. It doesn't matter what the distribution centers around, either - if the average IQ was 150, there would be workers with an IQ of 200 who would be equally rare and in demand, and the workers between 135-165 would be the "commoners" of the situation. Normal distributions will hold in any situation where a large number of variables determine the end result - such as genetic inheritance. Unless we artificially reduce the variance in talents/abilities/etc throughout the human population, there will always be significant inequalities between the earnings of the majority of the distribution and the earnings of the top end. Its certainly not a position that you can maintain while holding onto any kind of moral high ground, but I'm convinced its the only position you can maintain while being logically consistent. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
What about people who are born mentally retarded, or disabled, or with some condition that severely impacts their ability to do work that "normally" isn't hard for people? Certainly, they will have to rely on charity, but shouldn't the option be there for them to work for a supplemental income? Forcing people to hire them at minimum wage doesn't actually accomplish that - it equates to charity, because the employer is paying more than they should. This is where tax incentives come in. /// although I do firmly believe that we are better off without them in my workplace notwithstanding. However I just wanted to point out that giving them jobs isn't charity, there is a reason why we hire them. Apparently the tax benefits are significant. It /does/ turn it from charity from the employer into charity from the government though, and I don't really see why we (taxpayers) have to support them having a job. Parents responsibility, they brought the kid in knowing what they do, they should take care of it and not "dump" them on the rest of us. No, but I am contending that if you gave them a choice between working the jobs they work now and not working at all, or working less hours at a higher wage, they would choose to continue with what they're doing now. Actually, I've done some overseas work, and they would prefer that last option. It gives them more time to spend at home. A lot of the factory workers my parents worked with ( I worked with the children ) had regrets that they could not spend more time with their families, and the children wanted their parents around. // This however should not be construed to be an argument FOR a minimum wage. If there was a minimum wage, it would inflate prices to keep the same margins. Realistically, look at what unions and minimum wage laws have lead us to. Almost every sector that makes things, (barring more complicated things) can be undercut by lower paid workers in mexico or china. And it has happened. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it keeps prices here lower and enables us on the consumer side to consume more goods. However, if china and mexico also implimented minimum wage stuffs, then our prices inflate again. Our workers are then more competitive, but we can consume less. Its all a cycle that really depends on legislative whims. What is more important though, making our own shit? or being able to buy more shit? I submit that the more independant and self-reliant one is (or a country is) the better for that country. The problem with all this is that IQ (as noted) does not determine job fitness. Plenty of other things do. It's more of a skills bartering market then something only related to distribution and numbers. While it /could/ be a valid way of breaking things down, it is in my opinion far too simplistic. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 18:04 dogabutila wrote:This is where tax incentives come in. All a tax incentive does is change who is paying for the work that doesn't get done. Actually, I've done some overseas work, and they would prefer that last option. It gives them more time to spend at home. And not enough money to buy food. [/quote]The problem with all this is that IQ (as noted) does not determine job fitness. Plenty of other things do. It's more of a skills bartering market then something only related to distribution and numbers. While it /could/ be a valid way of breaking things down, it is in my opinion far too simplistic.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter that IQ doesn't determine job fitness. Job fitness is determined by a vast number of variables, some of which are genetic and thus randomly distributed and some of which are not, and thus cannot adequately be described by a statistical distribution. The point I was making, far from being eugenics shit, was that no matter what you do you're going to have some people whose skills are very much in demand and thus command a very high wage, and people whose skills are common, and thus cannot command a high wage. You cant change this without changing the way genetic outcomes are distributed. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
Cant get this editing // quoting stuff done right. Too tired. Tomorrow, except it's already tomorrow technically. | ||
|
trueg0x
South Africa86 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
This is not an accurate assumption. It does depend on how many less hours specifically and how much the wage increase is. It doesn't matter that IQ doesn't determine job fitness. Job fitness is determined by a vast number of variables, some of which are genetic and thus randomly distributed and some of which are not, and thus cannot adequately be described by a statistical distribution. The point I was making, far from being eugenics shit, was that no matter what you do you're going to have some people whose skills are very much in demand and thus command a very high wage, and people whose skills are common, and thus cannot command a high wage. You cant change this without changing the way genetic outcomes are distributed. The problem with this argument is that not all jobs require the same things. Some skills are in higher demand in some fields, and some skills are necessary for others. The problem with looking at it in this flat way is the assumption that some skills will be in higher demand. Some skills MIGHT be in higher demand, but simply because there are more jobs in that field (which keeps the wage from being higher). Breaking the argument down, you have to look at the job offerings // skillsets not in one big pool, but as a bunch of little pools. So, wages rise and fall with the growth and contraction of that industry, only so long as there are not enough people to meet that need // not enough people to meet that need. It has very little to do with genetic distribution and more with what field is chosen in school // job training one has. The point is statistics cannot give a complete picture simply BECAUSE some variables are not randomly distributed. You can't exclude information because it does not fit the model. | ||
|
Nesto
Switzerland1318 Posts
On June 23 2010 01:44 FreshVegetables wrote: Well theorically you're right but in reality there's still a minimum wage here. I'm actually quite surprised that there isnt a set minimum wage here, as I have heard people talk about it before. What i'm saying is there isn't a set minium wage by law. But as a fellow finnish man you would know that "TES - työehtosopimus"* has a minimum wage. It's pretty much the same here. We don't have a minimum wages law yet. Most industries have a "collective employment agreement" which defines some basic employment rules in the industry (holidays, working time, minimum wages etc) and is made by employeers and unions and those agreements mostly have minimum wages somewhere around 20$/hour. But even the worst paying full time job i can think of without such an agreement will pay you at least 15$/hour. I'm a bit stunned that it seems to be normal in the US that your first job pays you 6-8$ ... but well, it's the US anyway. oh and by the way, as someone metioned - last time I checked, our economy, and the ones from scandinavia weren't fucked up at all because of the high minimum wages  | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 18:25 dogabutila wrote:This is not an accurate assumption. It does depend on how many less hours specifically and how much the wage increase is. I don't believe I ever said anything about a wage increase. There is no wage increase justified merely by lowering hours worked. The choice they are faced with, in reality, is to do a certain amount of work and get paid the amount that work is worth, or to do less work and get paid what that less work is worth (less). The problem with this argument is that not all jobs require the same things. Some skills are in higher demand in some fields, and some skills are necessary for others. The problem with looking at it in this flat way is the assumption that some skills will be in higher demand. Some skills MIGHT be in higher demand, but simply because there are more jobs in that field (which keeps the wage from being higher). Breaking the argument down, you have to look at the job offerings // skillsets not in one big pool, but as a bunch of little pools. So, wages rise and fall with the growth and contraction of that industry, only so long as there are not enough people to meet that need // not enough people to meet that need. It has very little to do with genetic distribution and more with what field is chosen in school // job training one has. The point is statistics cannot give a complete picture simply BECAUSE some variables are not randomly distributed. You can't exclude information because it does not fit the model. Yes, you have to look at things are little pools rather than one massive pool, but with a world population in excess of 6 billion people, even your smallest pools are large enough that statistical analysis makes sense and can be quite accurate. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 18:41 Nesto wrote:oh and by the way, as someone metioned - last time I checked, our economy, and the ones from scandinavia weren't fucked up at all because of the high minimum wages Finnish Unemployment Rate, May 2010: 10.5% Swedish Unemployment Rate, April 2010: 9.1% Norwegian Unemployment Rate, April 2010, 3.5% Norway is the only one with a good unemployment rate, and the Scandinavian economies have been fucked up for 20+ years. | ||
|
hammeronetime
United States64 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 23 2010 18:59 hammeronetime wrote: I looked up Switzerland's unemployment and it was 3.7% and I find that highly suspect. Leads me to believe they're not recording everything. I wonder what the employment rate is specifically for people that are aged 16-22 and whether they factor in students looking for a part-time job. Unemployment surveys (in the US at least) will only count you as unemployed if you both dont have a job and have actively been looking for a job in the last week. I believe full-time students aren't counted by default, but I'm not very sure about that. | ||
|
Qwertify
United States2531 Posts
On June 18 2010 12:31 ohIdentity wrote: Whenever you get paid below minimum wage at a job if you don't make enough tips to put you at making = minimum wage then your employer (by law) has to make up the difference. If he doesn't then you can file charges against him and I think the minimum he has to pay you if it comes to that is like $1,100.00 per offense or something like that. I hope it helps. You don't have anything to worry about.EDIT: I was beat to it, never mind. In other words, keep your job man. It's WAY too hard to find a job now-a-days.He will make up the difference and then find someone you doesn't mind the pay to replace you, rather quickly. | ||
|
hammeronetime
United States64 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs hero
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs YSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
