Guess what…you are not special!!

Quote from smegalicious : Was the general topic previously referring to unemployment & minimum wage here in the U.S. or "in some countries"? Seemed to me to be the former. You expect people to be able to save money while simultaneously making less than the current minimum wage. Can you explain how that works?

First off, there is no guarantee that people would make less than the current minimum wage. People would make what they negotiate with people paying them.

If wages did tend to trend down (ie, everyone in America is currently being overpaid), then the result of that would be lower priced domestic goods and services, and a lower overall standard of living combined with less unemployment. Odds are, wages would stay close to the same as they are now for existing jobs, but new jobs would be offered for lower skilled employees paying less money. Those employees would take the jobs hoping to gain skills that they could then use to earn higher salaries in the future.

Quote from Danman114 : First off, there is no guarantee that people would make less than the current minimum wage. People would make what they negotiate with people paying them.

which would be less than minimum wage, most likely.

Quote from thikthird : which would be less than minimum wage, most likely.

Why were unions originally formed? To give a large group of people a single voice. When a large amount of workers state how much they want to be paid, their benefits, work schedules, safety requirements, etc etc, businesses have no choice BUT to come to a mutual agreement, and in return those workers provide a favorable service to the company.

Will some company undercut and pay less, of course they will. However, if people know the true worth of their skill set, they will always ask for more.

I REALLY, REALLY hate this liberal notion that people are just so amazingly stupid that they cant fend for themselves and need a constant guiding hand "helping" them out.

Quote from MISHNAH : Why were unions originally formed? To give a large group of people a single voice. When a large amount of workers state how much they want to be paid, their benefits, work schedules, safety requirements, etc etc, businesses have no choice BUT to come to a mutual agreement, and in return those workers provide a favorable service to the company. Will some company undercut and pay less, of course they will. However, if people know the true worth of their skill set, they will always ask for more. I REALLY, REALLY hate this liberal notion that people are just so amazingly stupid that they cant fend for themselves and need a constant guiding hand "helping" them out.

no, people won't ask for more. and it's not an implication that they're stupid.

when people are out of work and looking for jobs, particularly when looking at jobs that will pay around minimum wage (+/- min), chances are they're desperate for any work and any money. people will sell themselves short because they don't have options and know that there are other people will if they won't. also, most places have lawyers and experienced managers and teams of hr staffs who offer the salaries/wages. it's hard to negotiate against teams of professionals who's goal it is to give as little as possible when you're one desperate person.

So whos fault is it the teacher or the students

Quote from thikthird : which would be less than minimum wage, most likely.

Why is that? Most people in the US make above minimum wage now.

Quote from thikthird : no, people won't ask for more. and it's not an implication that they're stupid. when people are out of work and looking for jobs, particularly when looking at jobs that will pay around minimum wage (+/- min), chances are they're desperate for any work and any money. people will sell themselves short because they don't have options and know that there are other people will if they won't. also, most places have lawyers and experienced managers and teams of hr staffs who offer the salaries/wages. it's hard to negotiate against teams of professionals who's goal it is to give as little as possible when you're one desperate person.

People very well might take the first job that comes there way, and it might only pay a little amount. And that's fine. They are putting food on their table, and learning new skills. In their spare time they would continue to look for new jobs that pay more, or look for promotions based on the skills they learn.

Sure as heck beats living off of other people.

Quote from thikthird : no, people won't ask for more. and it's not an implication that they're stupid. when people are out of work and looking for jobs, particularly when looking at jobs that will pay around minimum wage (+/- min), chances are they're desperate for any work and any money. people will sell themselves short because they don't have options and know that there are other people will if they won't. also, most places have lawyers and experienced managers and teams of hr staffs who offer the salaries/wages. it's hard to negotiate against teams of professionals who's goal it is to give as little as possible when you're one desperate person.

Most professional managers and HR people also know how much to offer to attract the right talent, which will be a benefit to the company in the long run. They're not dumb, they know you have to pay to play, and paying more for the right highly-motivated employees is far better than losing money in the long run by using low-paid employees. If you have some skills and the right motivation, a company will easily pay more, because they know that overall you will be a benefit instead of a liability.

Paying a floorsweeper $2 an hour will save money, but the facility will look like crap. Paying $8 an hour will get a better "quality" of employee, so the facility will be cleaner and work more efficiently.

Will there be cheap-skate companies? Of course, but if history has shown anything, those companies wither and die. Ford paid their employees much, much higher wages than anybody else, and they were rewarded by the workers with harder work and more efficient production, which brought overall costs down and allowed the company to flourish.

Quote from Danman114 : Why is that? Most people in the US make above minimum wage now. People very well might take the first job that comes there way, and it might only pay a little amount. And that's fine. They are putting food on their table, and learning new skills. In their spare time they would continue to look for new jobs that pay more, or look for promotions based on the skills they learn. Sure as heck beats living off of other people.

most minimum wage jobs don't really teach skills that are valuable for upwards mobiliity.

i disagree.

Quote from MISHNAH : Most professional managers and HR people also know how much to offer to attract the right talent, which will be a benefit to the company in the long run. They're not dumb, they know you have to pay to play, and paying more for the right highly-motivated employees is far better than losing money in the long run by using low-paid employees. If you have some skills and the right motivation, a company will easily pay more, because they know that overall you will be a benefit instead of a liability. Paying a floorsweeper $2 an hour will save money, but the facility will look like crap. Paying $8 an hour will get a better "quality" of employee, so the facility will be cleaner and work more efficiently. Will there be cheap-skate companies? Of course, but if history has shown anything, those companies wither and die. Ford paid their employees much, much higher wages than anybody else, and they were rewarded by the workers with harder work and more efficient production, which brought overall costs down and allowed the company to flourish.

companies paying more to attract bigger talent doesn't apply to burger flipping/floor mopping type of jobs. manual labor jobs. they'd sooner undrecut one another since labor is abundant and next to worthless.

$6 more an hour won't get your floor any cleaner.

i can't...your last statement...serious? what? walmart isn't cheapskate? ford...flourish...? what?

Since we're not special and bound to a life of mediocrity, wouldn't it be much better to vote for Obama?

Quote from thikthird : most minimum wage jobs don't really teach skills that are valuable for upwards mobiliity. i disagree.

Name 1 that doesn't.

I guarantee every job you can think of I can tell you an employer who will pay you more money for a skillset you would develop successfully working at that job.

Quote from Danman114 : Name 1 that doesn't. I guarantee every job you can think of I can tell you an employer who will pay you more money for a skillset you would develop successfully working at that job.

landscape achitect
janitor
farm hand
waiter
fry technician (or whatever the term is for cooks at a fast food place is. burger king won't pay you $10 an hour if you have 3 years of experience working the grill at mcdonalds.)

Quote from thikthird : landscape achitect janitor farm hand waiter

These are minimum wage jobs?

Quote from paperboy05 : These are minimum wage jobs?

If you're an illegal, they are.

I can't imagine any citizen working on a farm doing backbreaking labor for anything less than $20/hr.

Quote from thikthird : landscape achitect janitor farm hand waiter fry technician (or whatever the term is for cooks at a fast food place is. burger king won't pay you $10 an hour if you have 3 years of experience working the grill at mcdonalds.)

I don't see most of those as being minimum wage jobs. Skilled and reliable janitors will be in demand pretty much anywhere. Landscapers I would say make more than minimum wage, and if not, probably has the lowest barrier to starting their own business out of just about any market.

A skilled waitstaff is extremely important and make plenty of cash.

As for fast food, similar to working in a kitchen, the goal is to start at the bottom and work up. Either manager, or cash register, then on to further customer service opportunities.

I imagine most farm hands would either be working towards higher skilled areas (like operating machinery). (Currently I think most 'farm hands' are either transient labor force from other countries, where their salary is actually pretty significant compared to their home standard of living)

Quote from Lilian : If you're an illegal, they are. I can't imagine any citizen working on a farm doing backbreaking labor for anything less than $20/hr.

Well, this is just another unjust barrier into the labor market. You can't blame the market for a problem clearly caused by the government, can you?