A minimum wage is just that ... a minimum starting point - not intended for a
skilled worker. MOST minimum wage workers are under 21 and single (I know many
aren't, but they generally have no skills that command more than a starting
wage). I employ about a dozen people ... about half (the unskilled
entry-level jobs) started at minimum wage, but after they master their job
positions and showed their reliability, I will raise their pay by about $2 an
hour. When they develop additional skills and can cover other job slots (for
vacationing or sick employees) they get another raise. They generally move up
to more skilled jobs in my company as openings occur ... and I eventually look
for another person to start the entry level job that's again available.
THIS IS the common-sense answer, not more government meddling ... a simple
reward for unskilled workers ...i.e. welfare.
No minimum wage assumes beneficent employers. Yes, it would be ideal for
allowing workers to begin a career starting in a low skill and moving up but, as
seen with many large companies, a great way to keep costs down is to never give
those low skilled workers wages or benefits that can lift them to a level where
they can buy the products and services they are providing.
Also, every time minimum wage goes up, employers look to automation or just
eliminating that position. You don't see ushers in movie theaters or gas
station attendants that pump your gas, wash the windows and check the tires,
Last I heard, only 5% of the workforce is being paid a minimum wage. Everyone
else is being paid more.
To "Dauly" why is it that only unskilled labor needs minimum wage laws
to protect them? Do politicians assume that they are not capable of refusing
jobs that don't pay them enough?Think of it this way. If
eliminating minimum wage laws is "a great way to keep costs down is to never
give those low skilled workers wages or benefits that can lift them to a level
where they can buy the products and services they are providing", why does
that not apply to skilled labor? Wouldn't a company save more money by
hiring a person for $25,000/yr instead of $50,000/yr, than they do by paying 5
people $5.25/yr instead of $7.25/yr. So, knowing that skilled labor costs more,
why is it that only the most unskilled have to be protected this way?
$15,080 before taxes, but $23,598 after earned income credits, etc. since they
pay NO taxes. not much to live on, but not as abused as some would have you
You've been hanging out with Professor Kearl too much. You better quit it,
or you'll start making too much sense.
With no minimum wage, you would be willing to work for $5/hr. But what about
the guy that would be willing to do it for $4.50? Or $3? or $2?We
have a minimum wage because people who need jobs are willing to sell themselves
short if it means the job goes to them instead of someone else.As
for why movie theaters no longer have ushers - it is because they found that
people will go to the movies even if there are not ushers.No company
- no matter how little they can get away with paying them - is going to hire
someone they don't need.