Minimum wage rates do not determine wage differentials.

[CFM]

CFM, employers are not generally altruistic, and they are not required to hire employees, or to hire any particular person. It’s assumed that enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Enterprises are not required to be employers, and they are not required to hire any specific persons.

Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to. Respectfully, Supposn

They are required to pay a minimum amount even when the one they hire isn't worth that amount in skills.

It's not the responsibility of an employer to be altruistic. The only responsibility an employer has to an employee is to pay them for the work they do. In the case of most minimum wage workers, those employers are required to pay more than the person's skills are worth.

I fully support an employer, not the government, being able to set the wage. Where you get that I'm opposed to paying less than the forced minimum must be why you can only make that amount and are begging for your employer to be forced to pay your more. Stupid fucking moron.

 

[Supposn]

CFM, employers are not generally altruistic, and they are not required to hire employees, or to hire any particular person. It’s assumed that enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Enterprises are not required to be employers, and they are not required to hire any specific persons.
Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to. …

They [, i.e. employers] are required to pay a minimum amount even when the one they hire isn't worth that amount in skills.

It's not the responsibility of an employer to be altruistic. The only responsibility an employer has to an employee is to pay them for the work they do. In the case of most minimum wage workers, those employers are required to pay more than the person's skills are worth.
I fully support an employer, not the government, being able to set the wage.
Where you get that I'm opposed to paying less than the forced minimum must be why you can only make that amount and are begging for your employer to be forced to pay your more. Stupid fucking moron.

CFM, apparently, we agree employers are not generally altruistic, and they shouldn’t be required to act altruistically.
I contend employers are not, (and should not) be required to hire employees, or to hire any specific persons. Are you arguing otherwise?
I assume enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Do you assume or believe otherwise?

If we’re in agreement upon these afore mentioned points, why did you state, “They [, i.e. employers] are required to pay a minimum amount even when the one they hire isn't worth that amount in skills”? Employers are not forced to hire or retain an employee that “isn't worth that amount in skills”.

I do not “get” you’re “opposed to paying less than the forced minimum”. I suppose that you’re opposed to employers being prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, apparently, we agree employers are not generally altruistic, and they shouldn’t be required to act altruistically.
I contend employers are not, (and should not) be required to hire employees, or to hire any specific persons. Are you arguing otherwise?
I assume enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Do you assume or believe otherwise?

If we’re in agreement upon these afore mentioned points, why did you state, “They [, i.e. employers] are required to pay a minimum amount even when the one they hire isn't worth that amount in skills”? Employers are not forced to hire or retain an employee that “isn't worth that amount in skills”.

I do not “get” you’re “opposed to paying less than the forced minimum”. I suppose that you’re opposed to employers being prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

If they don't hire, they're not employers. That argument of yours has now been dismissed.

There are benefits from every job no matter how menial. That isn't in question. What is in question is that what someone is being paid exceeds the benefit being provided. Are you arguing that someone doing a skill worth $2/hour is providing a benefit greater than the cost of $7.25/hour?

You're the one claiming we're in agreement. Try again.

I'm opposed to a minimum wage period. You figure out what the fuck that means while you're begging for something you didn't earn.

Without the respect you've failed to earn, CFM. Beggars don't deserve respect.

 

[Supposn]

If they don't hire, they're not employers. That argument of yours has now been dismissed.

There are benefits from every job no matter how menial. That isn't in question. What is in question is that what someone is being paid exceeds the benefit being provided. Are you arguing that someone doing a skill worth $2/hour is providing a benefit greater than the cost of $7.25/hour?

You're the one claiming we're in agreement. Try again.
I'm opposed to a minimum wage period. You figure out what the fuck that means while you're begging for something you didn't earn.
Without the respect you've failed to earn, CFM. Beggars don't deserve respect.

CFM, I contend employers who choose to continue paying more than the value of their employees’ labors’ values to the employers’ enterprises, would be acting altruistically. Do we agree that employers are not generally that altruistic?

I contend enterprises hire and pay employees in the belief that the employees’ efforts will be of net benefit to the enterprise, or not hiring someone to do the job, would be net detrimental to their enterprise. Do you disagree with that?

I contend enterprises are not required to hire employees, or hire any specific persons, or retain employees that perform unsatisfactorily. Do you disagree with any of that?

I contend that governments in the USA do not determine wage differentials, but the federal and some local governments do prohibit paying employees less than the minimum wage rate applicable within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend the federal and some other governments in the USA are setting only the minimum wage rates within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend descriptions of governments enforcing their definite minimum wage rate, as governments enforcing “wages” or “wage rates” without any further clarification, are exaggerated statements. Apparently, we disagree upon this point.

Please identify and explain the basis of what of these afore mentioned items you believe we disagree upon. Your responding complaints are less than explicit.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, I contend employers who choose to continue paying more than the value of their employees’ labors’ values to the employers’ enterprises, would be acting altruistically. Do we agree that employers are not generally that altruistic?

I contend enterprises hire and pay employees in the belief that the employees’ efforts will be of net benefit to the enterprise, or not hiring someone to do the job, would be net detrimental to their enterprise. Do you disagree with that?

I contend enterprises are not required to hire employees, or hire any specific persons, or retain employees that perform unsatisfactorily. Do you disagree with any of that?

I contend that governments in the USA do not determine wage differentials, but the federal and some local governments do prohibit paying employees less than the minimum wage rate applicable within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend the federal and some other governments in the USA are setting only the minimum wage rates within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend descriptions of governments enforcing their definite minimum wage rate, as governments enforcing “wages” or “wage rates” without any further clarification, are exaggerated statements. Apparently, we disagree upon this point.

Please identify and explain the basis of what of these afore mentioned items you believe we disagree upon. Your responding complaints are less than explicit.
Respectfully, Supposn

All of your contentions don't take into account the role of government and their mandates. That's why they're all wrong.

 

[Supposn]

All of your contentions don't take into account the role of government and their mandates. That's why they're all wrong.

CFM, apparently, you don’t disagree with any of my contentions of facts or conditions; you simply disapprove of the existing facts and conditions. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, apparently, you don’t disagree with any of my contentions of facts or conditions; you simply disapprove of the existing facts and conditions. Respectfully, Supposn

You haven't provided any contentions. You've made excuses as to why some unskilled POS should be paid more than their skills are worth and how you support the government forcing an employer to do so.

It's clear you're only looking out for yourself. You figure out what that means, scum.

 

[Saudade]

CFM, I contend employers who choose to continue paying more than the value of their employees’ labors’ values to the employers’ enterprises, would be acting altruistically. Do we agree that employers are not generally that altruistic?

I contend enterprises hire and pay employees in the belief that the employees’ efforts will be of net benefit to the enterprise, or not hiring someone to do the job, would be net detrimental to their enterprise. Do you disagree with that?

I contend enterprises are not required to hire employees, or hire any specific persons, or retain employees that perform unsatisfactorily. Do you disagree with any of that?

I contend that governments in the USA do not determine wage differentials, but the federal and some local governments do prohibit paying employees less than the minimum wage rate applicable within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend the federal and some other governments in the USA are setting only the minimum wage rates within their jurisdictions. Do you disagree with that?

I contend descriptions of governments enforcing their definite minimum wage rate, as governments enforcing “wages” or “wage rates” without any further clarification, are exaggerated statements. Apparently, we disagree upon this point.

Please identify and explain the basis of what of these afore mentioned items you believe we disagree upon. Your responding complaints are less than explicit.
Respectfully, Supposn

As I mentioned in the other thread, you can raise the minimum wage all you want, but as long as illegal labor is easy to get, then it doesn't mean anything.

If you want to actually help raise wages, prosecute employers of illegals and deport the illegals themselves. That will reduce the wage depression that they cause.

 

[Flash]

What is in question is that what someone is being paid exceeds the benefit being provided. Are you arguing that someone doing a skill worth $2/hour is providing a benefit greater than the cost of $7.25/hour?

$7.25 plus 15.3% Social Security and Medicare plus unemployment insurance.

I know small business people who cannot afford to pay $7.25 and must vary the number of hours their one part-time employee works based on their income that week.

 

[CFM]

$7.25 plus 15.3% Social Security and Medicare plus unemployment insurance.

I know small business people who cannot afford to pay $7.25 and must vary the number of hours their one part-time employee works based on their income that week.

As the wage goes up, the amount paid in FICA goes up.

When lefties like Supposn push for an increased minimum wage, what they're really saying is they believe people should lose jobs.

 

[Supposn]

They are required to pay a minimum amount even when the one they hire isn't worth that amount in skills.

It's not the responsibility of an employer to be altruistic. The only responsibility an employer has to an employee is to pay them for the work they do. In the case of most minimum wage workers, those employers are required to pay more than the person's skills are worth. …

[Originally Posted by Supposn:
CFM, employers are not generally altruistic, and they are not required to hire employees, or to hire any particular person. It’s assumed that enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Enterprises are not required to be employers, and they are not required to hire any specific persons.

Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to. …].
//////

CFM, are you implying that employers have so little understanding of what’s in their enterprises’ best interests? Your understandings of businesses are generally superior to those that manage the enterprises? Why would a manager hire or retain an employee if it were not in those managers or their enterprises’ best interests that they should do so?
You didn’t think through what you wrote prior to posting it. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[CFM]

[Originally Posted by Supposn:
CFM, employers are not generally altruistic, and they are not required to hire employees, or to hire any particular person. It’s assumed that enterprise managers perceived probable benefits due to their hiring decisions, or net detriments if they didn’t hire someone to do the job. Enterprises are not required to be employers, and they are not required to hire any specific persons.

Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to. …].
//////

CFM, are you implying that employers have so little understanding of what’s in their enterprises’ best interests? Your understandings of businesses are generally superior to those that manage the enterprises? Why would a manager hire or retain an employee if it were not in those managers or their enterprises’ best interests that they should do so?
You didn’t think through what you wrote prior to posting it. Respectfully, Supposn

I'm stating that employers not the federal government know more about what a job's value is.

The jobs minimum wage employees do, while necessary in most cases, are being paid more than is necessary based on the skills required to do them. What the federal government does by requiring a minimum is much like an unfunded mandate. You figure out what that means before replying back.

 

[Supposn]

… It's not the responsibility of an employer to be altruistic. … I fully support an employer, not the government, being able to set the wage. Where you get that I'm opposed to paying less than the forced minimum must be why you can only make that amount and are begging for your employer to be forced to pay your more. Stupid fucking moron.

CFM, the government doesn’t set wages but rather it sets the definite legal minimum wage rate within its jurisdiction (and it doesn’t cap wages). Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to.

Supposn

 

[CFM]

CFM, the government doesn’t set wages but rather it sets the definite legal minimum wage rate within its jurisdiction (and it doesn’t cap wages). Employers in the USA are legally prohibited from paying less than the legally applicable minimum wage rate and that’s what you are opposed to.

Supposn

When that minimum is more than what the one paying believes the skills to do a job are worth, it means the government is setting the wage.

I fully support employers paying less than the current minimum. In fact, I support a minimum wage not existing.

I told you don't respond until you understood what is being discussed. You don't listen.

 

[TTQ64]

The min wage has not been lifted in years. That means due to inflation, the lowest paid of all of us, have been taking constant and steady pay cuts. It should have been pegged to inflation, then it would be far above 15 bucks.
Yes, it should be national When states set their own, a state will undercut other states to lure companies. States having control is a race to the bottom. When states were permitted to make banking rules, a couple of states eliminated urury rules and caps on fees. Then all credit card companies set up a storefront and declared loan limits and fee caps dead. It cost Americans trillions.

THat's how capitalism was designed............keep the poor, poor and living off slave wages.

 

[TTQ64]

Wyoming has a 5.15 min. If they have to pay 7.25 why do they have it? Does it have to do with the number of employees? Certain occupations and groups of employees are exempt from the Federal Min wage. There are people in the states with lower min wages, making less than 7.25.

probably minorities........they keep the 5.15 so they can discriminate.

 

[CFM]

probably minorities........they keep the 5.15 so they can discriminate.

Sounds to me as if you're saying most minorities can only earn minimum wage.

 

[Supposn]

$7.25 plus 15.3% Social Security and Medicare plus unemployment insurance.

I know small business people who cannot afford to pay $7.25 and must vary the number of hours their one part-time employee works based on their income that week.

Flash, small businesses, (unlike larger enterprises) cannot benefit from many “economies of scale”; but minimum wage rate laws are of no competitive disadvantages between any USA enterprises.
The small business you describe would likely be at no less competitive disadvantages if there were no minimum wage laws in the USA.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Flash]

Flash, small businesses, (unlike larger enterprises) cannot benefit from many “economies of scale”; but minimum wage rate laws are of no competitive disadvantages between any USA enterprises.
The small business you describe would likely be at no less competitive disadvantages if there were no minimum wage laws in the USA.
Respectfully, Supposn

I understand your point, but $7.25 is barely possible and $15.00 would be impossible. Twice the amount does make a difference.

 

[Supposn]

I understand your point, but $7.25 is barely possible and $15.00 would be impossible. Twice the amount does make a difference.

Flash, the federal minimum rate has never been increased without sufficient warning. Its annual increases have always been gradual as to not shock Labor markets.
Respectfully, Supposn

H.R. 582, “Raise the wage act” is a good bill, but opponents of the bill will refrain from mentioning the minimum hourly rate will not be $15 until 7th year after the bill's passage.

In the likely case that it's not passed through and added to our federal statutes, I urge U.S. Congressional members to continue striving and pass a bill that would increase the minimum wage rate by 12.5% of its purchasing power until it attains 125% of its February-1968 purchasing power. Thereafter the rate should be monitored and annually adjusted to retain that purchasing power. …