How best to raise my wages?

[JLM]

$25 an hour is a pretty good wage, over $50,000 a year if you work a 40 hour week. Why should the government do anything at all to raise your wages? You want more, you need a promotion to a higher paying job, and that's up to you.

I'd say.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let's say I'm earning 25$ per hour. What can the government do to raise my wages? Or, is that even a legitimate question?

That is not a legitimate question. 25$ per hour translates into 50,000 $ per year, even if there is no overtime.

That is what my son gets (or will be getting from 1st July, when he starts the first year of residency). In that money he can afford to buy a house, he is looking at houses currently. Then what right does he have to demand that government raise his wages?

Now, if somebody is earning 5$ an hour (and many people would be earning that much, had it not been for the minimum wage), then that would be a legitimate question.

 

[Machjo]

$25 an hour is a pretty good wage, over $50,000 a year if you work a 40 hour week. Why should the government do anything at all to raise your wages? You want more, you need a promotion to a higher paying job, and that's up to you.

Of course I wasn't seriously suggesting that if my salary is 25$/hour that the government ought to worry about raising my salary. Obviously is must focus on those who have no salary as a priority. I was mainly taking that as an extreme example to more clearly demonstrate the futility of raising minimum wages, the principles presented applying regardless of salary. If the minimum wage is below yours, it's useless. If it's above yours but still below what you deserve, it helps but you're still not getting a fair wage. And if it's raised above what you're worth, you're out of a job. This basic principle applies regardless of your wages.

 

[JLM]

Of course I wasn't seriously suggesting that if my salary is 25$/hour that the government ought to worry about raising my salary. Obviously is must focus on those who have no salary as a priority. I was mainly taking that as an extreme example to more clearly demonstrate the futility of raising minimum wages, the principles presented applying regardless of salary. If the minimum wage is below yours, it's useless. If it's above yours but still below what you deserve, it helps but you're still not getting a fair wage. And if it's raised above what you're worth, you're out of a job. This basic principle applies regardless of your wages.

Which raises another good point, if the minimum wage is raised, there will be a lot of people laid off just for the reason, they aren't worth any more than they are presently getting (some I wouldn't pay $2 an hour) and you can't expect an employer to keep them around when he's losing money on them. :smile:

 

[Machjo]

That is not a legitimate question. 25$ per hour translates into 50,000 $ per year, even if there is no overtime.

That is what my son gets (or will be getting from 1st July, when he starts the first year of residency). In that money he can afford to buy a house, he is looking at houses currently. Then what right does he have to demand that government raise his wages?

Now, if somebody is earning 5$ an hour (and many people would be earning that much, had it not been for the minimum wage), then that would be a legitimate question.

Had you read the rest of the OP, you'd understand that the point was not seriously to raise my salary,but rather to point out the futility of minimum wage. And if minimum wage were replaced by co-determination legislation, some might be earning more than they're earning now with minimum wage. And as for those still earning 5$ an hour, they could qualify for an education voucher> Maybe we could simply require employers to inform their workers earning below a government-recommended minimum wage of their entitlement to that voucher. As a result, some of them would likely take the government up on the offer, still keep their job part-time on weekends while they're studying (besides, if the voucher should cover education, room and board, then that's really pocket change anyway). Bear in mind though that with co-determination legislation in place, the only way any business could legitimately pay their staff 5$ an hour would be if the business really hurting. Such companies would likely be on the verge of bankruptcy anyway and so are not likely to stick around for very long.

Remember too that some people, especially if married and their spouse is earning much money, might want to work for a volunteer agency, don't want to work for free, but are still more concerned about the work itself than the actual salary. Minimum wage would stifle that option. With a minimum wage, the organization has the option of either paying nothing or the mandated minimum wage. Some people might be looking for something between and that option ought to be made available. Minimum wage legislation does not allow that. On the other hand, a school voucher programme would give those who work below the government-recommended minimum wage the option of quitting work, or working only part-time, taking the government up on its offer, and getting a better education. At least then it's a choice, unlike now where it's mandated.

 

[Machjo]

Which raises another good point, if the minimum wage is raised, there will be a lot of people laid off just for the reason, they aren't worth any more than they are presently getting (some I wouldn't pay $2 an hour) and you can't expect an employer to keep them around when he's losing money on them. :smile:

Exactly. If I'm worth 2$ an hour, then mandated minimum wage legislation puts me out of a job. Instead, if the government should introduce a recommended minimum wage below which I'm entitled to a school voucher to go back o school and learn what I need to learn so as to become worth a higher wage, then after my education I could go back into the job market and be offered a fair wage rather than being turned back owing to mandated minimum wages. Meanwhile, I might still appreciate the 2$ an hour in part-time work over the weekend to gain some work experience. Besides, if the voucher pays me education, room and board for a year, I'm not going to be going hungry anyway.

Also, even workeing for 2$ an hour gives me work experience at least, allows me to get my foot in the door, and as my employer sees my skills rising, he'll gradually raise my wages. Again, an exception could apply in some towns if the employer has a monopoly on the job market. But again, this is where co-determination laws would come in.

 

[Icarus27k]

I was going to suggest what we here in the US did with health care reform: Tax the insurance plans that employees get through their employers. But then I realized who I was talking to. Canada has that own special kind of health care policy, like, thing.

But that is a curious effect that US politicians have realized. In a system where employers provide their employees health insurance, taxing that insurance causes the employees' wages to go up. Crazy sounding I know, but it works.