Wealth Inequality in America

[StPaulHusker]

Let me throw this out there because I see people on minimum wage as two different groups.

 

There are the people who are trying to live off of these wages.

 

Then, there are the teen agers and college kids who this is their first entry level position. They don't have many job skills but they are getting experience to hopefully move up as they get older and better trained/educated.

 

So....would you be in favor of a two level minimum wage? Maybe have a minimum wage for people under 20 years old and one for people over 20 years old?

I'm not sure it could be based on age.

[carlfense]

Let me throw this out there because I see people on minimum wage as two different groups.

 

There are the people who are trying to live off of these wages.

 

Then, there are the teen agers and college kids who this is their first entry level position. They don't have many job skills but they are getting experience to hopefully move up as they get older and better trained/educated.

 

So....would you be in favor of a two level minimum wage? Maybe have a minimum wage for people under 20 years old and one for people over 20 years old?

I'm not sure it could be based on age.

Why not?

[sd'sker]

So....would you be in favor of a two level minimum wage? Maybe have a minimum wage for people under 20 years old and one for people over 20 years old?

i do not see a problem with this. you would have to make the argument that age makes them more valuable.

[BigRedBuster]

I threw an age level out there simply because it is the easiest to determine.

 

Right now, I know certain instances where a minimum wage job was open. Teenagers applied for the job along with people (even though uneducated) have more experience in the work place actually holding a job. The older person is given the job because the hiring company feels if they are going to have to pay $X then might as well bring someone in that at least has proven they can show up for work. This has lead to it being very hard for teenagers to find summer jobs in our area.

 

Now, the flip side to this is, if a two level minimum wage is put in place, the opposite might happen where teenagers are now going to have LOTS of options because they are cheaper than someone in their early to mid twenties.

[StPaulHusker]

We are talking about minimum wage employees, are we not?

We are. How many other employees are there? Are the facilities owned or leased? What's the equipment like? How about the book keeping?

 

Again. Stalling much?

Right . . . you've said nothing more than that there are 100 minimum wage employees who would be paid X dollars more . . . and now I'm supposed to offer a real analysis with no other facts?

 

I don't think that I need to stall to make your hypothetical look comical. You're doing great.

I knew you would do this when we started talking about this. All I need to know is how an employer can offset $750k+ in additional costs by increasing minimum wage on 100 employees without cutting back on employees or passing costs on to customers. There is nothing comical about my scenario. What's comical is that you keep dodging.

[StPaulHusker]

Let me throw this out there because I see people on minimum wage as two different groups.

 

There are the people who are trying to live off of these wages.

 

Then, there are the teen agers and college kids who this is their first entry level position. They don't have many job skills but they are getting experience to hopefully move up as they get older and better trained/educated.

 

So....would you be in favor of a two level minimum wage? Maybe have a minimum wage for people under 20 years old and one for people over 20 years old?

I'm not sure it could be based on age.

Why not?

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

 

A different approach would maybe be a part-time/full-time. Part-time gets the $7.50/hr. Full time is guaranteed $11.00 or something like that. Problem with this scenario is that you would have large corporations cutting everyone to part time to avoid paying the extra money. So then you would ave to have a mandate that a minimum # of people have to be full-time. Not just managers.

[carlfense]

I knew you would do this when we started talking about this.

You knew I would ask for a realistic hypothetical with real variables instead of accepting the bare facts that you hoped would force me into a false decision? Well . . . how clairvoyant.

 

All I need to know is how an employer can offset $750k+ in additional costs by increasing minimum wage on 100 employees without cutting back on employees or passing costs on to customers.

Save $750,000 elsewhere. Where? Well, all we know so far is that some employees are going to be paid more. If you won't fashion your hypothetical I guess you're asking me to do it for you.

 

Here goes: The owners total compensation package was $1.5 million. He chooses to take a pay cut to pay his 100 highly productive (and profit generating!) the new minimum wage.

 

If you won't offer specifics then I guess I'll have to do it for you. It certainly makes my argument easier.

[BigRedBuster]

A different approach would maybe be a part-time/full-time. Part-time gets the $7.50/hr. Full time is guaranteed $11.00 or something like that. Problem with this scenario is that you would have large corporations cutting everyone to part time to avoid paying the extra money. So then you would ave to have a mandate that a minimum # of people have to be full-time. Not just managers.

 

 

I thought about something similar but then I thin it has flaws too. Take my two daughters who are 16 and 17 years old. They are life guards at the local small town pool. The pool already costs the city a lot of money to run because it doesn't break even. They make somewhere around 7-8 per hour. They put in a TON of hours. Some days, they get there at 9:00 and don't get home till 10 -11 at night.

 

Now, if the city is required then to bump them up to $11 per hour, the city is going to have a tough time paying bills.

 

I will flat out admit, they don't deserve $11 per hour.

[carlfense]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

[sd'sker]

A different approach would maybe be a part-time/full-time. Part-time gets the $7.50/hr. Full time is guaranteed $11.00 or something like that. Problem with this scenario is that you would have large corporations cutting everyone to part time to avoid paying the extra money. So then you would ave to have a mandate that a minimum # of people have to be full-time. Not just managers.

 

 

I thought about something similar but then I thin it has flaws too. Take my two daughters who are 16 and 17 years old. They are life guards at the local small town pool. The pool already costs the city a lot of money to run because it doesn't break even. They make somewhere around 7-8 per hour. They put in a TON of hours. Some days, they get there at 9:00 and don't get home till 10 -11 at night.

 

Now, if the city is required then to bump them up to $11 per hour, the city is going to have a tough time paying bills.

 

I will flat out admit, they don't deserve $11 per hour.

you could make seasonal/city employee exemptions, perhaps.

[sd'sker]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

the disabled are already exempt from minimum wage laws. it is not impossible to exempt a class of people from such laws.

[knapplc]

Wouldn't this be reverse age discrimination? You would be paying older people more to do the same job as a younger person just because they are older. You could make the argument that a younger person could work harder and therefore should make more money. I am using a manual labor scenario, BTW.

Not if the government changes the age discrimination laws . . . which would presumably be a part of a two level minimum wage law.

 

No reason to change the law, much like Medicaid covers people of a certain age and not everyone.

[BigRedBuster]

A different approach would maybe be a part-time/full-time. Part-time gets the $7.50/hr. Full time is guaranteed $11.00 or something like that. Problem with this scenario is that you would have large corporations cutting everyone to part time to avoid paying the extra money. So then you would ave to have a mandate that a minimum # of people have to be full-time. Not just managers.

 

 

I thought about something similar but then I thin it has flaws too. Take my two daughters who are 16 and 17 years old. They are life guards at the local small town pool. The pool already costs the city a lot of money to run because it doesn't break even. They make somewhere around 7-8 per hour. They put in a TON of hours. Some days, they get there at 9:00 and don't get home till 10 -11 at night.

 

Now, if the city is required then to bump them up to $11 per hour, the city is going to have a tough time paying bills.

 

I will flat out admit, they don't deserve $11 per hour.

you could make seasonal/city employee exemptions, perhaps.

On the other hand, it would be a lot easier to pay for college in a few years if they were paid $11.

[StPaulHusker]

I knew you would do this when we started talking about this.

You knew I would ask for a realistic hypothetical with real variables instead of accepting the bare facts that you hoped would force me into a false decision? Well . . . how clairvoyant.

 

All I need to know is how an employer can offset $750k+ in additional costs by increasing minimum wage on 100 employees without cutting back on employees or passing costs on to customers.

Save $750,000 elsewhere. Where? Well, all we know so far is that some employees are going to be paid more. If you won't fashion your hypothetical I guess you're asking me to do it for you.

 

Here goes: The owners total compensation package was $1.5 million. He chooses to take a pay cut to pay his 100 highly productive (and profit generating!) the new minimum wage.

 

If you won't offer specifics then I guess I'll have to do it for you. It certainly makes my argument easier.

No problem. I will accept the owners compensation at $1.5 million. So the best you can come up with is cutting the compensation in half? How many small business owners do you think would do that versus raising prices on the consumer or unfortunately cutting staff? You are right, though. It is an option. Just not a good one.

[carlfense]

No reason to change the law, much like Medicaid covers people of a certain age and not everyone.

I see what you're saying but I think that a mandated wage paid by a private employer is somewhat different than a service provided directly by the government.