Get Some
General => General Chat => Topic started by: benlav on February 11, 2013, 04:56:53 pm
-
Apparently there is going to be a push of some sorts to publisize a minimum wage of $18 per hour. Not only do I genuinely believe this would reduce the labour force - with fewer workers earning more, I also believe it is a waste of time and energy. I'm curious to know whether there is anyone here who believes the opposite? Minus the trolls and abuse, I'd really like to know how they believe it won't break the economy.
-
You can't break what is already broken. I haven't read up to much on the proposal but I think it is based on a recent report which said that for a family to have a decent life they need to earn $18 for 40 hours of work.
-
Everyone deserves a living wage. Of course, it's pathetic that a minimum wage is even required to force employers to do the right thing, but oh well. People will always fight for the right to impoverish minorities and the poor.
-
Well it's just redistributing the wealth to lower social classes isn't it?
It may not break the economy in that you have a larger number of people with more expendable income. These people then spend that money, and if you've got 10 people on $40kpa, they could buy a lot more cheese than one on $400k. Some industries would be winners, others would be losers, but I think that there's this misconception that people who start earning more are going to go chuck the extra money on a bonfire, and everyone will go bankrupt.
But then again it might get broken. I'm not an economist.
-
Well it's just redistributing the wealth to lower social classes isn't it?
It may no break the economy in that you have a larger number of people with more expendable income. These people then spend that money, and if you've got 10 people on $40kpa, they could buy a lot more cheese than one on $400k. Some industries would be winners, others would be losers, but I think that there's this misconception that people who start earning more are going to go chuck the extra money on a bonfire, and everyone will go bankrupt.
But then again it might break it. I'm not an economist.
-
I absolutely believe that everyone is entitled to a living wage, don't get me wrong there. I just don't think the minimum wage is the way to do it. Unemployment is high by historical standards. I believe this will force more out of employment.
-
I absolutely believe that everyone is entitled to a living wage, don't get me wrong there. I just don't think the minimum wage is the way to do it. Unemployment is high by historical standards. I believe this will force more out of employment.
So I googled "minimum wage causes job loss"
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
What a surprise that there is plenty of evidence this is bullshit.
From Wikipedia:
Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[79] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[80]
In 2005, T.D. Stanley showed that Card and Krueger's results could signify either publication bias or the absence of a minimum wage effect. However, using a different methodology, Stanley concludes that there is evidence of publication bias, and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.[81] In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conducted a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on dis-employment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."[82]
In short, raising the minimum wage doesn't cause an impact on employment numbers. Also, it showed me that NZ was the first country in the world to have a minimum wage, set into law over 100 years ago! Way to go us.
-
TL;DR pretty much every post, someone derpify the explanation of why higher wages means less jobs?
-
TL;DR pretty much every post, someone derpify the explanation of why higher wages means less jobs?
The logic is that business owners cannot afford to pay higher wages or that raising minimum wages will just increase the cost of all products/services.
Which is a crock of shit. An unprofitable enterprise will always be unprofitable. If it is only profitable due to exploiting cheap labour, then it deserves to fail.
-
Yeah Anri, I have come across that in the past. I guess the bias I have there is that most increases are incremental so it can be built into the books going forward. So my angle is that an increase from say $13 to $18, being almost 40% which be more overwhelming than normal.
-
The logic is that business owners cannot afford to pay higher wages or that raising minimum wages will just increase the cost of all products/services.
Which is a crock of shit. An unprofitable enterprise will always be unprofitable. If it is only profitable due to exploiting cheap labour, then it deserves to fail.
Gotcha, thank you.
-
Bullshit that people can't live on the current minimum wage IMO.
-
It is not a new minimum they are trying to have established. It is a "living wage" which the group promoting it are trying to convince big businesses who "can afford" to pay their staff more, to do so. They are starting by targeting councils, banking institutions, lawyers etc. to have them pay cleaning/reception staff more.
In short, they believe by paying staff who would normally be on minimum wage a "living wage" companies will see benefits such as:
- Lower staff turnover (and so reduced training cost etc)
- A happier work force
- Higher quality of work as a flow on from the happier work force
They back this up with similar things which have been done in London, Vancouver and a few other cities. The amount of this "living wage" has not yet been officially announced by the group trying to promote it (officially they will say tomorrow) but they have said its in the region of $16-$19 per hour.
John Key has already said the govt wont be looking to change minimum wage, but encourages any employers who can afford to pay their staff more to do so.
-
It's not the case of can't live Lyes, it's more to live comfortably
And basically what MCC said. Minimum wage should exist for the younger that are working after school shifts as they generally do not require a wage to live on. But for those that are working 40 hour weeks the minimum wage is not sufficient
-
Yeah Anri, I have come across that in the past. I guess the bias I have there is that most increases are incremental so it can be built into the books going forward. So my angle is that an increase from say $13 to $18, being almost 40% which be more overwhelming than normal.
Where are you getting this very specific $18 figure from? I'm not seeing any recent mentions in the news for it.
I agree with you that a jump of $5 is a big thing to cope with but that's not traditionally how a minimum wage increase is put together. Again, what is your point of reference for this? Can you link us? Is this shit coming from Kiwiblog, because if it is...
Ultimately I think it would be far more sensible for the government to set up a standard method to determine how much the minimum wage should increase by per year, and have it do so, once a year, like clockwork. So 1 January the wage goes up $1.50 and the government announce "If the economy trends where we expect in 1 years time, the wage will go up by x amount." Then 6 months later then can say "Yes, it will go up that amount." or "No, it will go up by y instead because z."
Minimises any shocks to business and ensures that minimum wage earners are fairly compensated and kept ahead of any inflation.
EDIT: Given I've just started reading this living wage thing (hadn't previously seen it in the news, my bad) I should clarify. Where I have refereed to a minimum wage, I am referring to the American concept of the wage which you require to live. The American minimum wage is below the level where many people and families are able to live on it.
-
Americans also rely massively on tips which is bad. Banks a greedy, I work for one, I know. You decrease profits, your share price drops as dividends and growth slows. Bank bosses get paid less via incentives and bonuses. Having been dissillusioned over the past 5 years, I can't see them playing ball.
-
It's not the case of can't live Lyes, it's more to live comfortably
And basically what MCC said. Minimum wage should exist for the younger that are working after school shifts as they generally do not require a wage to live on. But for those that are working 40 hour weeks the minimum wage is not sufficient
You're an apprentice, which means you get less than minimum, could you live off your wage if you had to? Ignoring any dependants for this scenario.
I believe if you can't afford to have kids then you shouldn't have them.
-
You're an apprentice, which means you get less than minimum, could you live off your wage if you had to? Ignoring any dependants for this scenario.
I believe if you can't afford to have kids then you shouldn't have them.
I'm on $12.20 an hour, 2nd year apprentice. I'll be getting about 13$ around june.
I heard they're giving a 2k incentive to all new apprentices... Shit why can't they divide 2k into my wages. Unlucky that I missed out :(
Although there is a 1st year who's 38, on 10$ an hour, and some how pays child support and is living with his missus.
I have no clue how people do it.
-
EDIT: Given I've just started reading this living wage thing (hadn't previously seen it in the news, my bad) I should clarify. Where I have refereed to a minimum wage, I am referring to the American concept of the wage which you require to live. The American minimum wage is below the level where many people and families are able to live on it.
America has a minimum wage?
Why not hire illegal immigrants? They work harder for much less and instead of firing them, you deport them back to their country.
-
TL;DR pretty much every post, someone derpify the explanation of why higher wages means less jobs?
total money/minimum wage = number of jobs.
-
America has a minimum wage?
Why not hire illegal immigrants? They work harder for much less and instead of firing them, you deport them back to their country.
According to the Wikipedia, technically yes.
"US$7.25 per hour under U.S. Federal law (or 2.13 for employees who receive tips, known as the tipped minimum wage), $9.04 in the U.S. state of Washington."
But as you say, paying an "illegal immigrant" is much cheaper. Speaking of which would you care to earn some shiny trinkets, native man?
-
IMHO this shit dont work
lets look at it like this
min wage gets upped >
all other wages have to go up to match it i.e. people who earn more than minimum, the qualified and skilled workers who should be payed more than minimum. >
so now truck drivers need more money, and train drivers and nurses so on... >
The prices for all services go up, food goes up cause its more expensive to transport it (and supermarkets now have 30% higher wage cost)
supermarkets is just one example, doctors costs would go up cause they would have to pay their nurses and anesthetists more.
i cant be bothered typing more but i think you get the idea
basically as prices go up, everyone ends up in the same boat again, with not enough money to get by
-
IMHO this shit dont work
lets look at it like this
min wage gets upped >
all other wages have to go up to match it i.e. people who earn more than minimum, the qualified and skilled workers who should be payed more than minimum. >
so now truck drivers need more money, and train drivers and nurses so on... >
The prices for all services go up, food goes up cause its more expensive to transport it (and supermarkets now have 30% higher wage cost)
supermarkets is just one example, doctors costs would go up cause they would have to pay their nurses and anesthetists more.
i cant be bothered typing more but i think you get the idea
basically as prices go up, everyone ends up in the same boat again, with not enough money to get by
Sorry, math disagrees with you. This is one of the reasons this is an issue, the answer seems, using napkin math, to have an obvious solution. That's why it was widely believed among economists. However, with modern historical records, this is being proven wrong.
Googling "minimum wage increase causes inflation" shows multiple links stating that either a causative link cannot be established (ie, there is not enough evidence that proves that a raise in minimum wage causes inflation) or that shows the opposite, high inflation requires minimum wage increases if a countries minimum wage earners are to remain financially solvent.
Quoting Nguyen Viet Cuong from the National Economics University, Hanoi, Vietnam. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36750/1/Impact_of_MW_increases_on_CPI_in_Vietnam.pdf
"It is often argued that minimum wage increases can lead to increased inflation. In Vietnam, there have been 9 increases of the minimum wage since the year 1993. The real minimum wage increased by around 118% during the period 1994-2009. The CPI increased by 245% during this period. Increased minimum wages are sometimes to blame for an increase in the prices of commodities and services in Vietnam. Yet, there has been no quantitative analysis of the impact of minimum wage increases on inflation in Vietnam. This paper is the first attempt to examine the impact of the minimum wage increases on inflation during the period 1994-2008 using OLS regressions. Inflation is measured by the monthly overall CPI and monthly food CPI. It is found that the minimum wage increases did not increase the overall and food CPIs. Instead, the point estimates of both short-run and long-run effects of the minimum wage increases on these CPIs are negative. However, these estimates are not statistically significant at the 5% level.
It should be noted that the minimum wage increases often took place one or two months before the Vietnamese New Year festivals. Thus, observed increases in monthly inflation after the minimum wage increases resulted from increased consumption demand during the New Year festivals, not from the minimum wage increases. There are two possible explanations for insignificant impacts of minimum wage increases on inflation. Firstly, the number of laborers who are affected by minimum wage increases might be small. According to Nguyen (2009), there are around 10% of workers who have low-wage and can be affected by minimum wage increases. In addition, around 60% of laborers are self-employed and working for other households. These groups are not influenced by minimum wage increases. Secondly, the number of enterprises affected by minimum wage increases, and under market competition these enterprises are unable to pass through to prices the higher costs due minimum wage increases. It implies that the production unit cost as well as the aggregate demand is not increased. As a result, there are no significant impacts of minimum wage increases on inflation. Analysis of channels through which the minimum wage increases impinge on inflation requires different data sets such as enterprise surveys and household surveys, thus it is beyond the scope of the paper, but certainly important for future research.
There are two main policy implications for Vietnam deriving from this study. Firstly, the minimum wages should be increased to compensate wage workers for real wage reduction caused by inflation in Vietnam. The annual growth rate of real minimum wages is still lower than that of GDP. In the most recent increase of the minimum wage in May 2009, although the nominal minimum wage increased by 20%, the real one decreased by 3% (due to high inflation in 2008). Secondly, previous increases in minimum wages are found not to lead to high inflation. So a reasonable increase in minimum wages is a result of inflation, not a cause of inflation."
-
IMHO this shit dont work
lets look at it like this
min wage gets upped >
all other wages have to go up to match it i.e. people who earn more than minimum, the qualified and skilled workers who should be payed more than minimum. >
so now truck drivers need more money, and train drivers and nurses so on... >
The prices for all services go up, food goes up cause its more expensive to transport it (and supermarkets now have 30% higher wage cost)
supermarkets is just one example, doctors costs would go up cause they would have to pay their nurses and anesthetists more.
i cant be bothered typing more but i think you get the idea
basically as prices go up, everyone ends up in the same boat again, with not enough money to get by
Agree.
Artificially raising the wage by rising the minimum wage doesn't help if the economy is not there to support it.
I would imagine most supermarket workers are on the minimum wage.
-
It's not about upping costs, it's about reducing profits.
Greedy motherfuckers don't want to do that, so that's why we have minimum wage in the first place.
By reducing profits one can afford better/more staff and in turn grow their business for increased profits.
But it's always the short game people play.
-
I think $18 is still a bit extreme.
$15 is more reasonable, that is what Labour were calling for at the last election.
-
All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to live in this country, the cost of living is getting ridiculous.
I don't know how those earning the min wage or anywhere near it survive.
A friend of mine has just had to go on the dpb due to a marriage breakup and they pay her $700 a week to assist her in raising her 2 kids, that is a lot more than $13.50 an hour, a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it
-
A friend of mine has just had to go on the dpb due to a marriage breakup and they pay her $700 a week to assist her in raising her 2 kids, that is a lot more than $13.50 an hour, a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it
a lot more than $18 an hour come to think of it
more than $18
$700 / 40 = $17.50
-
So the proposal out today relates to a 'Living Wage' rather than a minimum wage. It's not a legislative thing, but rather something public institutions and private businesses can opt-in to (there's some evidence to suggest it could be cost-neutral depending on the organisation).
However, I think we will definitely see this policy be taken up by local government and then central following the 2014 general election (Labour will move to ensure all public institutions are hiring on a 'living wage'). This will lead to some pressure being put on the private sector to increase their lowest wages in order to par with the public sector [or they simply will not be able to compete for talent].
The rationale is that it will be cost-effective because the nominal increase in wage better equips employees to meet the high costs of living (particularly in Auckland) and that it will also increase productivity (people feel 'valued' more, can afford preventative treatments, car insurance, food etc -> work harder). This remains to be seen.
The opposing arguments will be that:
- it causes inflation (which is more or less negated by the Reserve Bank, who can effectively limit inflation using the OCR - however this comes at the cost of increased unemployment)
- is a waste of taxpayers money [in the case of central government employers]
- is a waste of ratepayers money [in the case of local government employers]
- is unnecessary because of Working for Families; why benefit all wage-workers (or at least publicly employed ones) when we should be targeting families?
I don't see it as an entirely bad idea because inflation isn't a problem in this country and we can afford to have some inflationary pressure ; it just means that the OCR will be adjusted as necessary.I doubt it will be inflationary - and regardless, the inflation measurements we have (CPI) are pretty void given they don't take into account housing/accommodation - which is where most of these peoples' extra-income will be going anyhow.
It's also a good way of enabling people to pay-down debt. This policy shouldn't have the 'unemployment'-hangups that minimum-wage policies tend to have, because it's not forcing private sector to employ at a certain rate; it's just pressuring them to do so through augmented market forces.
In terms of cost to the taxpayer, that's a fair argument; but it's somewhat more equitable than working-for-families and should have positive flow-ons for wage-earners and negative flow-ons for employers; however a capital-gains tax will see more investment into productive enterprise which should cushion any blow.
In terms of cost to the ratepayer, that's a different kettle of fish; whether or not councils should be experimenting with nominally costly labour-market policies is a question about their mandate - particularly when most local governments in this country have appalling records in finance and very high levels of debt.
It's an attractive policy, but it really only dances around two issues (which I'm guessing Labour will try to address with their housing plan and capital gains tax): lack of supply in the housing market in Auckland and pressure on that low-supply because of property speculation and a rental-market which is too profitable.
IMO, the CGT will be good because it redirects capital investment into productive sectors of the economy (although this makes increasing housing supply a little bit more difficult; except for the fact that government has a blank cheque for housing) but the supply issue is actually caused by over-saturation in both speculators and renters in the Auckland market - people will need to move South. Hopefully with manufacturing jobs on the decline, and the economic growth due from the Canterbury rebuild people will begin to shift out of the Auckland market (that leviathan of a super-city is becoming our only egg, and we should be looking to diversify)
$700 / 40 = $17.50
If that's $700 net then:
$21.66/hr * 40 = 866.40
$866.4 - 19.2% (paye* + acc levy)
= $700.05
* from $14,001 to $48,000
Notwithstanding the 0-14k tax bracket is taxed at 12.2 (incl. acc)
-
$700 / 40 = $17.50
If it's 700 in the hand, it's the same as $21/hr at 19% tax (paye + acc levy) - notwithstanding the 0-14k tax bracket is taxed (with acc levy) at the lower 12.2%
-
Agree.
Artificially raising the wage by rising the minimum wage doesn't help if the economy is not there to support it.
I would imagine most supermarket workers are on the minimum wage.
i am a supermarket worker, and i am on minimum wage despite working there for over 2 and a half years
im far from a finance expert, but im just saying that the minimum wage has gone up from 6.50 to 13.50 during my working life, and at every step i havent really felt any better off, tbh i didnt even know the last one had come through, people support these sorts of thing because they go "o yay i get more money" but in my opinion its not often thought through beyond that, im not talking about the people in this thread, who (strangely for GetSome ;) ) actually seem to be pretty well versed in the topic, and actually looking at the figures people bring up is fascinating.
i look at it like this, im living in palmy, im in a pretty good flat at 110pw, plus 30pw for power, net, phone so on (this is all between 3 of us) throw in 50 for gas and 50 for food.
20 for my loan payment
if i was on minimum wage @ 40 hours a week i would be getting $437.40 after tax, take off my kiwisaver and student loan repayment and im maybe on what? 410? my costs are only 260, leaves 150 dollars extra.
pretty easy to live for yourself on min wage, now dont attack me, im not stupid i know other cities are more expensive, i know people have kids, i know people are struggling, I just see a lot of people around in basically these circumstances complaining they cant afford to live.
now its worth mentioning i dont work 40 hours a week, i work 12 and i cant get buy, my parents are paying my rent because i cant make those payments, i am actually destitute, (this week i cant afford food or petrol) so dont judge me, i just think people complain too much when their circumstances (sometimes) could be a lot worse.
and yes i am trying to find another job or more hours, ive been trying for fucking months
-
Bro.
Stop working in supermarkets :<
-
All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to live in this country, the cost of living is getting ridiculous.
The cost of living isn't so bad.
The cost of food however, is just fucking retarded.
Especially healthy food.
-
the more money you make the more you spend. im in aus making 45 per hour doing 40 hrs a week and at the end of the week i have no saveings. but the cost of living in the west of queensland is ridiculous and im moveing back to nz for less money but will beable to save more as the cost of living is sooo much cheaper
-
You can't break what is already broken. I haven't read up to much on the proposal but I think it is based on a recent report which said that for a family to have a decent life they need to earn $18 for 40 hours of work.
Dont forget the Working for Families top up.
-
You can't break what is already broken. I haven't read up to much on the proposal but I think it is based on a recent report which said that for a family to have a decent life they need to earn $18 for 40 hours of work.
I'd pay someone $18 to work 40 hours for me, any takers?
-
I'd pay someone $18 to work 40 hours for me, any takers?
Try the Chinese (http://www.getsome.co.nz/showthread.php?84588-Amazing)
-
There are a few points I would like to raise which haven't already:
1: Unskilled jobs are always going to pay crap. Why? Because they are unskilled.
Sure, Swinging a hammer against rocks for 8 hours a day is back breaking and physically hard, but any neanderthal with more than 1 brain cell can do it. Even the spindliest weakling after a couple of weeks will develop the muscle endurance and power to do a good days work.
2: Skilled jobs are always going to pay well.
This is the inverse of the above - but if you have a population size of 20, and of those 20, only 1 of them is able to a particular task - then that person is going to be able to command a higher wage for his services than 19 other people because he is the only one that can do that task.
3: It sucks that crappy jobs pay crap and the people that do them are poor.
It does - but thats life. Don't like it? Educate yourself to get a better job!! Don't have the commitment/drive/Time to Educate or Upskill yourself? Stop bitching about being poor.
4: The job market is tough, so make sure you present yourself as a candidate that a potential employer can't live without.
Seriously - a Good, well written CV and a good interview is all you need to get a good job. I will admit that CV writting is hard and I struggled with it, eventually I had some help from someone in the recruitment industry to tidy it up and that helped me land 2-3 interviews, just on the strength of my CV alone. A lot of people under-value how important a CV is. A lot of people also expect a potential employer to get back to them.
Wrong
You call up the employer and ask when they would like you to come in for an interview. if an Employer has 2 candidates, one shows that they are keen and eager and willing to take the initiative whereas the other candidate doesn't - who is he going to hire?
5: Why should any employer eat into their profit margins so that you can do the bear minimum required for an Unskilled job?
they shouldn't.
Go above the standard required, make a business case why you should be paid more, be prepared to find another job and let your employer know that you are looking because you are unhappy in your current job. Find a way to add value to the company in the role you are currently in
-
Wise words
I agree.
-
It does - but thats life. Don't like it? Educate yourself to get a better job!! Don't have the commitment/drive/Time to Educate or Upskill yourself? Stop bitching about being poor.
Agree with this. In NZ is pretty easy for anyone to study. Get a student loan (alot of people in this position would qualify for student allownace), get some qualifications, then they are in a better position to apply for a higher paying job.
-
Its very hard to find good people.
At the end of the day, if you are half decent, you will be paid well so the company can hold onto you. Not happy with your pay? Find somewhere else to work. If you're as good as you think you are your current employer will hang onto you at all costs.
The large majority of people are lazy slugs who will do as little work as possible without getting fired.
Fuck, my mums never had any well paying jobs. At 62 years old and still cleaning after a lifetime of cleaning jobs, she now owns 2 homes, part owns a bach, and while not living extravagantly she lives a very comfortable life.
If all you can do is clean, you just need to be a fucking good cleaner and you'll be a whole lot better off than most people in the world.
-
If all you can do is clean, you just need to be a fucking good cleaner and you'll be a whole lot better off than most people in the world.
http://www.inspirationpeak.com/cgi-bin/stories.cgi?record=26
During my second month of nursing school, our professor gave us a pop quiz. I was a conscientious student and had breezed through the questions, until I read the last one: "What is the first name of the woman who cleans the school?" Surely this was some kind of joke. I had seen the cleaning woman several times. She was tall, dark-haired and in her 50s, but how would I know her name? I handed in my paper, leaving the last question blank. Before class ended, one student asked if the last question would count toward our quiz grade. "Absolutely," said the professor. "In your careers you will meet many people. All are significant. They deserve your attention and care, even if all you do is smile and say 'Hello'."
I've never forgotten that lesson. I also learned her name was Dorothy.
-
the more money you make the more you spend.
Just want to add onto this:
As Income increases spending on Luxuries (non-essentials) increases
Also the TYPE of essential changes. The richest people can afford to eat McDonalds and KFC every day of their lives. They dont, but they do spend a significant amount on higher cost food (and alcohol).
However: There is a limit to just how much one person can spend. This is why you never seen Oil Sheiks run out of money, but bankrupt winners of Lotteries are 12 for 10 cents.
-
If all you do is smile and say 'Hello', how are you supposed to know there name?
Also i'm terrible at remembering names. It can get quite awkward, when i'm talking to someone, and i've forgotton thier name, and I really should know it.
-
Just want to add onto this:
As Income increases spending on Luxuries (non-essentials) increases
Also the TYPE of essential changes. The richest people can afford to eat McDonalds and KFC every day of their lives. They dont, but they do spend a significant amount on higher cost food (and alcohol).
However: There is a limit to just how much one person can spend. This is why you never seen Oil Sheiks run out of money, but bankrupt winners of Lotteries are 12 for 10 cents.
yeah but a sheiks has all ways had the welth of his family so wont go nuts blowing all his cash, people that win lotto a well dumb and go nut spending on random shit because thay have never had money and dont know how to handle it. i tell you what but if i won lotto i would put 90% o it in to the highest intrest bank acount i could find an live off that and save some of that intrest.
-
If all you do is smile and say 'Hello', how are you supposed to know there name?
Also i'm terrible at remembering names. It can get quite awkward, when i'm talking to someone, and i've forgotton thier name, and I really should know it.
I have a bad habit of being introduced to someone, shaking their hand, saying "hello 'so n so', nice to meet you". Before I've let go of his hand, I've forgotten his name. I now have to make a conscious effort to remember the name. Apparently there is a saying, that if you say their name 4(?) times in the space of a minute, in conversation, you'll never forget. You'll sound like a right weirdo, but you'll not forget their name. It may be 4, could be 7, but you get the gist.
-
What a bunch of retards. Profitable businesses are often competing with others that may not be local, if your business is competing with one based in a country with a lower wage, and wages here are normally the largest expense a business has, then it stands to reason you can't compete very well. As for the line "if they can't afford to pay more wages then they don't deserve to exist" How does that conclusion benefit anyone? One less business many jobs gone. but hey thats better right ?
I own a business, all my clients are businesses, and all a minimum wage increase will do is get people laid off/ businesses closed, some numpty fecks doing economy at uni seem to forget the recession hasn't gone anywhere. Last year saw a number of business owners close the doors as the owners were just working long hours for nothing.
What we should do is get rid of wage earners, and everyone should be a self employed contractor, therefore taking responsibility for their own income.
-
What we should do is get rid of wage earners, and everyone should be a self employed contractor, therefore taking responsibility for their own income.
I agree with the rest of your post but that?
Yeaaaaaah
No.
How would that Help Industry?
-
It'd give everyone an eye opening realisation of what it takes to be in business an destroy the "you can afford more, give me more wages" mentality of morons.
-
It'd give everyone an eye opening realisation of what it takes to be in business an destroy the "you can afford more, give me more wages" mentality of morons.
Then society would collapse, dogs would marry cats, cows would rain from the sky etc.
-
It'd give everyone an eye opening realisation of what it takes to be in business an destroy the "you can afford more, give me more wages" mentality of morons.
Except it wouldn't - if everyone was an independant contractor, any IP they create would be held by them (as they are independant) thus if Company X didn't want to pay them a higher contractor Fee, they could approach company Y, armed with their IP that is used by Company X - ask Company Y for a higher amount (and in return divulge information on the competitor Company X)
In most cases where Independant Contractors are used - there are various clauses about working for competitors and having a cool-down period of 6 months, however if Everyone was a contractor - that would have to be removed (unless someone wants to pay me for not working for 6 months...)
-
So people would get paid for their knowledge, and skills. I don't see a problem with that
-
Except it wouldn't - if everyone was an independant contractor, any IP they create would be held by them (as they are independant) thus if Company X didn't want to pay them a higher contractor Fee, they could approach company Y, armed with their IP that is used by Company X - ask Company Y for a higher amount (and in return divulge information on the competitor Company X)
In most cases where Independant Contractors are used - there are various clauses about working for competitors and having a cool-down period of 6 months, however if Everyone was a contractor - that would have to be removed (unless someone wants to pay me for not working for 6 months...)
I think you are underestimating peoples' ability to not give a fuck about themselves, complain about it, then attempt to make everyone else fix it for them.
-
So people would get paid for their knowledge, and skills. I don't see a problem with that
That in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that I might decide I want more money from you and so increase my Contracting rate.
You have the choice of either paying me or not.
If not - I go to your competitor armed with my knowledge of YOUR business and screw you over.
Effectivley it would give contactors a Carte Blanche to Blackmail business with the threat of passing IP to rivals.
-Xeno, I work in IT, trust me - that is one area of Humanity that I never underestimate.....
-
So people would get paid for their knowledge, and skills. I don't see a problem with that
I think you are underestimating peoples' ability to not give a fuck about themselves
I think he is overestimating the peoples ability to critically judge their own abilities.
Only one person in 1,650 people are capable of that.
-
Noodles & Dumplings.
-
That number (1 in 1650) might rise with some responsibility forced unto the masses. As for demons argument. Thats kind of the point, you get paid what your worth. If you have the ability to take a business's core away, it's in the interests of that business to pay you, and keep you.
It gels well with my dislike of a 'business entity' having a status & rights seemingly on par with people, and if reaching corporate levels well above a person.
-
i think businesses need to look at other ways of helping staff with increased living costs without resorting to increasing the minimum wage.
possible options are:
- getting staff together to buy a cattle beast for home kill
- providing fresh free fruit and vegetables at work for workers to eat
- shared cost of gym membership and/or workout equipment (resaonable cost)
- shared cost of health insurance or prefered treatment centres (dentists, GP's etc)
small to medium businesses are the ones most likely to want to pay their staff more but may not be able to if the minimum wage is increased - giving the businesses options to help out staff will be a win - win option for businesses and staff.
staff feel like they are valued and do their best to make the company/business successful
businesses will hopefully be more productive, which will increase their income, which hopefully would allow the company to continue helping staff