House and Senate Democrats introduce legeslation to increase federal min. wage to $15/hr by 2025

MunoRN, RN · Feb 10, 2021

23 hours ago, Beerman said:

I think we pretty much agree. Where I differ, is that I don't think the staring point matters much.

For example, a cashier at McDonald's may start at $15 an hour, but that person is never going to make $30+ doing the same job. That job is only worth so much to the employer. A cashier has a ceiling as to their skill is of value to the employer. No matter how good they are, they will never be worth twice as much as a $15 hour cashier.

The cashier can work hard, and advance. In most companies, with a promotion to a new role comes a new salary or wage. It even sounds like that's what you do. The wage at the starting position is irrelevant. For example, a nurse is promoted to a manager. The management position provides a new starting manager salary. What she/ he was making as a staff nurse does not matter.

Except that's not how the cost paid for goods and services is determined. If I need a new oven and the seller says it costs $5000, I can't say 'it's only worth $2000 to me, so I'm going to pay $2000 for it and you can get the remaining $3000 from the government.

In that scenario it would expected that the government would say 'no, if you need a new oven you need to pay what it costs, we're not paying the remaining amount you don't feel like paying'.

Beerman, BSN · Feb 10, 2021

2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

Except that's not how the cost paid for goods and services is determined. If I need a new oven and the seller says it costs $5000, I can't say 'it's only worth $2000 to me, so I'm going to pay $2000 for it and you can get the remaining $3000 from the government.

In that scenario it would expected that the government would say 'no, if you need a new oven you need to pay what it costs, we're not paying the remaining amount you don't feel like paying'.

If it costs $5000, and is worth $2000 to you, you simply don't buy it.

If you pay $17 and hour for a position, and the potential employee needs $30 to cover their cost of living, do you give them $30? Doubtful. you probably either hire them for the wage that makes sense for you, possibly leaving it up to the govt to cover the rest, or you find someone else to work for $17.

MunoRN, RN · Feb 12, 2021

On 2/10/2021 at 12:19 PM, Beerman said:

If it costs $5000, and is worth $2000 to you, you simply don't buy it.

If you pay $17 and hour for a position, and the potential employee needs $30 to cover their cost of living, do you give them $30? Doubtful. you probably either hire them for the wage that makes sense for you, possibly leaving it up to the govt to cover the rest, or you find someone else to work for $17.

Exactly, if you can't afford the product or service then you don't get to have it. Supplementing businesses that can pay their costs just reduces the role in the market of those who can, that's the opposite of how free market capitalism is supposed to work.

The pay range for an employment sector should broadly reflect a minimal living wage for those workers. That of course doesn't mean that the lowest pay rate will cover the highest costs of living, people will still have to work their way up to that. You seem to be arguing that because some people may have costs where their cost of living may be closer to $30/hr that then a $15/hr minimum wage doesn't make sense, so somehow a $7.25 minimum wage makes more sense?

Beerman, BSN · Feb 12, 2021

32 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Exactly, if you can't afford the product or service then you don't get to have it. Supplementing businesses that can pay their costs just reduces the role in the market of those who can, that's the opposite of how free market capitalism is supposed to work.

The pay range for an employment sector should broadly reflect a minimal living wage for those workers. That of course doesn't mean that the lowest pay rate will cover the highest costs of living, people will still have to work their way up to that. You seem to be arguing that because some people may have costs where their cost of living may be closer to $30/hr that then a $15/hr minimum wage doesn't make sense, so somehow a $7.25 minimum wage makes more sense?

C'mon man! This whole back and forth hasn't been about me saying $xx minimum wage does or doesnt make sense.

It's about you saying a employer should pay enough so that their employees are never supplemented by govt assistance. And, if they cant, they shouldn't be in business.

But, yet you admit you don't pay enough for certain jobs to cover the cost of living for some in certain life circumstances. Such, as for a single parent.

I've maintained a employee should be paid what that job and person doing it is worth to the employer. Which, is exactly how you run your business. You don't pay anyone the $30 an hour to do a $17 hour job.

TheMoonisMyLantern, LPN, RN · Feb 13, 2021

On 2/11/2021 at 8:02 PM, Beerman said:

C'mon man! This whole back and forth hasn't been about me saying $xx minimum wage does or doesnt make sense.

It's about you saying a employer should pay enough so that their employees are never supplemented by govt assistance. And, if they cant, they shouldn't be in business.

But, yet you admit you don't pay enough for certain jobs to cover the cost of living for some in certain life circumstances. Such, as for a single parent.

I've maintained a employee should be paid what that job and person doing it is worth to the employer. Which, is exactly how you run your business. You don't pay anyone the $30 an hour to do a $17 hour job.

I see your point and I can't say that I disagree. However, the problem is that too many jobs have are considered to be unworthy of adequate pay. Whereas jobs that do sustain families and individuals are in smaller supply or have increased barriers of entry. That disparity is a problem

MunoRN, RN · Feb 13, 2021

On 2/11/2021 at 5:02 PM, Beerman said:

C'mon man! This whole back and forth hasn't been about me saying $xx minimum wage does or doesnt make sense.

It's about you saying a employer should pay enough so that their employees are never supplemented by govt assistance. And, if they cant, they shouldn't be in business.

But, yet you admit you don't pay enough for certain jobs to cover the cost of living for some in certain life circumstances. Such, as for a single parent.

I've maintained a employee should be paid what that job and person doing it is worth to the employer. Which, is exactly how you run your business. You don't pay anyone the $30 an hour to do a $17 hour job.

To clarify my previous clarifications, I don't think an employer's pay range should start at the highest possible living wage in order to ensure every single employee is at or above the living wage specific to their circumstances.

An employer's pay range should reflect how much their employees actually cost. Ie if the minimum living wage for a workforce ranges from $15 to $27 an hour, then the employer shouldn't be allowed to have a pay range of $7 to $10 an hour , leaving taxpayers to pay majority of their payroll.

What is it that you're proposing?

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Feb 19, 2021

CNN 2/18/21

Walmart just boosted pay to $15. It's not what you think

Quote

Walmart announced pay bumps Thursday that will bring its average hourly wage to over $15 an hour. But the move still falls short of the $15 minimum wage announced by some of its largest competitors.

Walmart, America's largest private employer, said it will raise wages for 425,000 US workers -- more than a fourth of its workforce -- to at least $13 an hour.

Starting March 13, hourly workers stocking shelves and fulfilling customers' home delivery and curbside pickup orders in stores will receive a starting rate of $13 to $19 an hour, based on the store's location and market, Walmart (WMT) said. Last year, the company raised wages for 165,000 store workers in management roles to a starting rate of $18 an hour.

Overall, approximately half of Walmart employees— around 730,000—will earn at least $15 an hour....

OldEMTNurse, LPN, EMT-I · Feb 19, 2021

On 2/3/2021 at 12:06 PM, Beerman said:

I guess since they cant afford to stay in business when the govt sets their wages, its for the best they go out of business. I'm not sure, though, how the low wage workers who will be laid off are going to come out far ahead?

Maybe they can follow Kerry's advice and compete with the coal miners for a small number come solar energy tech jobs.

The only thing is, look at what happened in Texas this week. Lots of freezing temps outside causing wind turbines to freeze up, and several thousand without heat or electricity for days.

OldEMTNurse, LPN, EMT-I · Feb 19, 2021

On 2/3/2021 at 11:02 PM, Beerman said:

The minimum wage is $14-something in.Long Beach. The recent ordinance was for $4 more per hour. don't remember what they called it exactly, but it was "covid hazard pay".

Now, those employees will be out of jobs.

The minimum wage in the area where I live is $7.25 an hour for employees who work at places like Mc Donalds, the elderly greeters and or the cashiers at Walmart.

OldEMTNurse, LPN, EMT-I · Feb 19, 2021

On 2/5/2021 at 11:02 AM, TheMoonisMyLantern said:

I agree, people should definitely wait to have kids until they are financially stable. We need to be aggressive with education on safe sex, offer contraception, along with family planning oh wait that's right Republican's have done everything they can to defund and destabilize Planned Parenthood which provided those services to many many communities around the nation. Well there goes that plan.

Yes, but they also kill babies and cut some of them up and store the parts in formaldehyde until those parts are needed for transplants.

chare · Feb 19, 2021

2 hours ago, OldEMTNurse said:

Yes, but they also kill babies and cut some of them up and store the parts in formaldehyde until those parts are needed for transplants [emphasis added].

Really? Which "parts" are you referring too?

toomuchbaloney · Feb 20, 2021

5 hours ago, OldEMTNurse said:

The only thing is, look at what happened in Texas this week. Lots of freezing temps outside causing wind turbines to freeze up, and several thousand without heat or electricity for days.

Texans could have prevented the turbines from freezing, we use them in Alaska. It was the incompetence of their elected officials which led to this disaster. The government is supposed to plan for the worst...they chose austerity instead.