NJ referendum on raising minimum wage. Opinions?

[Kheldarson]

A nice summary on Henry Ford for anyone interested:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...her_wages.html

[Lachrymose]

Let me state for the record that I respect anyone who continues their education. I think investing in education is never a waste of time and/or money (although some may disagree based on whatever your major was..I may too, but can't think of any majors that are a true waste of time or money at the moment).

However, I know enough people who've obtained degrees that they will never use and get jobs well below their education level that it can be self-defeating to think degree=wealth.

Does that mean I think they wasted their time? Nope.

And I've worked just as hard, if not harder (since I had to prove through experience that I can do what I can do), to get where I am today without finishing school.

I will concede that I could probably be making more than I am in the field I'm in (IT/programming) if I actually did obtain a degree. But of course that's a big if as well... Not to mention it's not all about the money anyway, but the "total workplace experience", as Gravekeeper touched on.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not going to disagree with the first part, but will contest the second about cause and effect. The only examples we really have for that is comparing companies like Costco to Sams Club or In N Out to McDonalds. Yes, Costco and In N Out pay a lot more than Sams Club or McDonalds, and yes, they have much more productive workers, but, having known people who do work at Costco and In N Out, it is incredibly difficult to get a job at those places, they only hire the people who already are more productive.

You are aware that your country has the most famous incident of what happens when you raise employee wages in all of history, right? If not then you might want to go look up a young upstart by the name of Henry Ford.

Also, I'm sure every employer on the planet would love to discover your magical secret for determining a person's true productivity before they even start the job.

So can we stop imagining what we think the problem is or how it works when even a cursory Google search would tell you otherwise?

I never finished college and, judging by this post, make nearly twice as much as you do.

Come to think of it, I only have a high school diploma and I make more as well. >.> But my company doesn't treat us like cattle.

[s_stabeler]

actually, it needs those other things to get the improvement. Basically, some form of financial security is necessary for an employee to be truly productive. By that, I mean that the minimum wage should be sufficient to support one person. ( that is, it should cover at a minimum, a one-bedroom flat, the associated utility bills, food and transport costs to work. At a minimum. and I do define an internet connection as a utility. As do I a cheap mobile phone contract. ( that more or less allows someone to live a basic life on minimum wage, but if you want a truly good life, you need to put in the effort to find a better job.)

[Hyena Dandy]

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

Fixed so that you're talking about the poverty line in the US

[Andara Bledin]

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

This.

Aside from people being happier when they make more money, it's been shown that people who worry over money are actually less capable of making good decisions. So it's actually a physiological fact that people who make enough to survive perform better than those who don't.

How's that for cause and effect?

[Lachrymose]

Damned right it is my problem. If minimu wage is raised to 15 as many of these groups want, I will become a minimu wage employee and my investment in college will have been worthless, and yes, I will take offense at that.

I never finished college and, judging by this post, make nearly twice as much as you do.

Does that make you angry?

[s_stabeler]

it's slightly simplified, but there are several reasons why. 1) you attract better workers. If you pay more, you will attract workers that actually give a damn. This is a somewhat delayed benefit. This is what you identify as the reason for CostCo's increased productivity, if I read your post correct. 2) Workers are less stressed and distracted. A worker trying to decide between putting food on the table or paying rent is not going to be able to put their full concentration into the job they are paid to do 3) The workers you have actually give a damn. If you pay your workers enough to actually live on, then amazingly, they find less to complain about, and will take more crap from customers etc.

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

[smileyeagle1021]

Um, draco664, it has, in fact been proven before that employees treated properly are more productive. It's not cause and effect being reversed.

I'm not going to disagree with the first part, but will contest the second about cause and effect. The only examples we really have for that is comparing companies like Costco to Sams Club or In N Out to McDonalds. Yes, Costco and In N Out pay a lot more than Sams Club or McDonalds, and yes, they have much more productive workers, but, having known people who do work at Costco and In N Out, it is incredibly difficult to get a job at those places, they only hire the people who already are more productive. There is something to be said about an employee who isn't stressed over how they are paying rent is going to be more focused and more productive, but I question the studies that say "look Costco pays more and their workers are more productive" as proof that better pay automatically leads to better productivity.

[s_stabeler]

Also, I have a problem with the fact that people's idea of the poor is that they should be constantly working and spend no money on themselves. Psychological needs are needs too. The poor should be able to have things that help them relax and destress, too. And the internet is one of the best things possible for that.

you aren't wrong- wages should allow some room for luxuries ( here I define luxuries as anything you can live without.) but what people are saying is that it's shameful that wages can be lower than what is required to survive on.

[Hyena Dandy]

QFT. If you work for a full week and don't take home enough to pay for basic living expenses, then there is a problem. That said, basic living expenses do not include cable, internet, mobile phones, booze and cigarettes.

Why should basic living expenses not include internet and mobile phones? Those are necessary in the modern world. A lot of jobs won't accept you if you don't have at least a phone number, and often an e-mail address. Pre-paid mobiles are cheaper than a landline. The year is not 1990 and mobile phones are not a luxury of the super-rich. Same with the internet, honestly. Internet connections are vital for things like searching for jobs, for improving your situation. Talking about mobile phones as an excess is as out of touch as when people on Fox News say the same about refrigerators.

Also, I have a problem with the fact that people's idea of the poor is that they should be constantly working and spend no money on themselves. Psychological needs are needs too. The poor should be able to have things that help them relax and destress, too. And the internet is one of the best things possible for that.

I honestly feel like the internet and telephones should be state-provided.

As for saying that better paid people work better is putting the effect before cause... That's ridiculous. Studies have shown that people who are not under stress perform better than people who are. Money is the biggest stressor in a lot of people's lives. Change that, you change the amount of stress they feel. Change the stress they feel, they do their job better.

[Gravekeeper]

A line that could just as easily be written as...

Fun fact: Workers who are more productive are paid more.

Are you mistaking the cause for the effect? Or could it be a mixture of both?

Except workers who are more productive are not paid more in the sectors we're talking about. These are sectors were people can be with the company for 10 years and not even get a raise. Also, all evidence points to it being exactly the way around that Andara stated.

Worker engagement in the US is hilariously low. Only 35% of workers report being positively engaged with their jobs. Why are they not positively engaged? Because their employer treats them like cattle.

QFT. If you work for a full week and don't take home enough to pay for basic living expenses, then there is a problem. That said, basic living expenses do not include cable, internet, mobile phones, booze and cigarettes.

As noted, what passes for basic living expenses in the US does not even include shelter. Unlike the rest of the industrialized world. So this is pointless to bring up.

However, minimum wage laws are a sledgehammer approach to a one-hundred-tiny-nails problem. Jobs in different industries have different needs; hell, different companies in the same industry have jobs with different needs. Trying to shoehorn a one-size-fits-all solution will result in entirely foreseeable problems for some.

I don't know what you're even talking about here. You're completely missing the point of minimum wage and at the same time assuming minimum wage is the global norm? Minimum wage is chiefly the concern of the service and retail sectors.

It's the wrong approach. Increasing employment and job market participation is the solution. If the unemployment rate was lower, companies would need to offer more to attract better employees. With more people working, more money circulates, improving living standards and reducing the strain on welfare.

Do I seriously need to repeat everything I've already said in this threat? You're completely missing the point of minimum wage and totally ignoring all of the economic evidence and historical evidence I have already provided.

I don't even know how you typed that with a straight face given that people with college degrees are fighting over cashier jobs at McDonalds right now in the US economy. How do you propose to create more jobs in a stagnant economy with one of the worst wealth gaps in the world without increasing the purchasing power of those at the bottom end?

How do you rationalize away the fact that the US has one of the lowest minimum wages amongst first world countries yet one of the highest GDP's and that when adjusted for inflation the same job in 2013 makes you $3.30/hour less than it did in 1968?

If you got rid of the imbecilic level of paperwork, red tape, regulation and bureaucracy it takes for small businesses to hire, that would effectively make the level of 'productivity' a worker needs to provide lower. It would make a great many government workers redundant however, so that's unlikely to ever happen.

Right. According the National Small Business Association the #1 reason small businesses are not hiring is economic uncertainty and the #2 reason is decline in consumer spending.

Guess what raising minimum wage would improve?

So can we stop pulling anecdotes about what we THINK is the problem out of our ass now? -.-

[s_stabeler]

Um, draco664, it has, in fact been proven before that employees treated properly are more productive. It's not cause and effect being reversed.

as for basic living expenses, I might actually include a basic mobile phone in that, since it is important for a lot of things.

as for reducing red tape- name what regulations you want to see removed. Not just a generic "reduce red tape and bureaucracy"

and again, why is requiring that an employer pay at least a wage people can actually live on a debatable thing?

[draco664]

Fun fact: Workers who make more money are more productive.

A line that could just as easily be written as...

Fun fact: Workers who are more productive are paid more.

Are you mistaking the cause for the effect? Or could it be a mixture of both?

Now that small business that everyone says will be hurt terribly with only 10 employees is looking at $64 a day. If $64 a day is what breaks them when they are already spending $462.72 per day (this is assuming that all payroll is spread evenly over 365 days in the year) on payroll alone, then they probably weren't going to last that long anyway.

Considering that the actual payroll figures are barely half of the actual cost of employing someone, your figures are somewhat out. Red tape and bureaucracy kill more jobs than any raise in the minimum wage would.

The fact that so many people think it's OK to pay people less than a livable wage is utterly appalling.

It doesn't matter how menial and unskilled the labor is. If the job needs doing at all, it needs to have the people doing it be paid a livable wage.

QFT. If you work for a full week and don't take home enough to pay for basic living expenses, then there is a problem. That said, basic living expenses do not include cable, internet, mobile phones, booze and cigarettes.

And to everybody of the "fuck you, I got mine" or "I got screwed, so you should have to get screwed, too" people: YOU are the problem. And if you would stop being so utterly selfish, you'd realize that the solution would benefit you just as much as it would those that are being crushed at the bottom.

I helped a friend do an experiment at Uni. Essentially, people in two groups were offered free money (not much, five bucks). One group was offered the cash no strings attached. As you'd expect, just about everyone took it up. (a couple thought it was a scam, and one person had a religious objection to accepting 'charity')

The second group were offered the same amount, but they were told that there was a condition if they accepted it - someone else would be given fifty bucks. They did not know the other person, they never saw the other person.

It stunned me that most people in the second group refused to take the cash. They would be personally better off, but because someone else would be even more better off, they refused.

Most people are fucking stupid, and that stupidity can be channeled by clever people so that stupid individuals will actively defend a position where they will be worse off.

However, minimum wage laws are a sledgehammer approach to a one-hundred-tiny-nails problem. Jobs in different industries have different needs; hell, different companies in the same industry have jobs with different needs. Trying to shoehorn a one-size-fits-all solution will result in entirely foreseeable problems for some.

Those trying to push for the increase will highlight the examples that suit their position - like the costco example upthread where higher wages correspond with increased productivity. Those against the increase will champion different examples - like highlighting areas with many low productivity jobs that will suffer increased unemployment. Neither position tells the whole truth, but the aim is to give people more money on average.

It's the wrong approach. Increasing employment and job market participation is the solution. If the unemployment rate was lower, companies would need to offer more to attract better employees. With more people working, more money circulates, improving living standards and reducing the strain on welfare.

If you got rid of the imbecilic level of paperwork, red tape, regulation and bureaucracy it takes for small businesses to hire, that would effectively make the level of 'productivity' a worker needs to provide lower. It would make a great many government workers redundant however, so that's unlikely to ever happen.

[Gravekeeper]

The problem is the poverty line in the US is calculated ridiculously. It's based only on the price of staple foods, and doesn't take into account housing, electricity, etc.

Yeah, I just noticed that. How the hell does that work and whose brilliant idea was it?