Minimum wage rises in Canada

[AnnaG]

India is a developing country, in spite of what some conservatives claim here. No developing country can be considered civilized. Did you see 'Slumdog millioniare'? Most of the things you see there are based upon real life (little boy jumping into a pile of sh*t, or men removing eyes of little children, making them blind to turn them into beggars etc.), there is very little exaggeration in the movie.

From Princeton U.:

"civilized: having a high state of culture and development both social and technological; " So India doesn't have much for technology? It doesn't have much of a society or much culture?
I agree that it's not as developed as others, though:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YukonJack]

"lol You sure put a lot of trust that all employers are fair-minded. As far as I know, there's no maximum limit to an employee's wage, so I don't quite understand why you said "if employers were allowed to pay more for deserving employees"."

Employers can afford to pay only so much in wages. If they are restricted to pay the industrious, hard-working, productive and diligent employees the same as the lazy, socialistically-brain-washed, unproductive slugs, obviously your friend, the hard-working one will suffer and SirJosephPorter's friend will benefit.

I myself never had to rely on minimum wage, in spite of the fact that as a young person with hardly any knowledge of English managed to find a job where I could earn my living. How many of today's minimum wage "earners" would be willing to muck 15-20 tons of rock every day? Or cut two or more cords of pulp wood? How many of them would be willing to live on savings earned picking tobacco and go get their high school diploma earned in a language other than teir mother tongue?

And, yes, I found employers fair minded. I found that whenever I did my best, they did their best.

 

[AnnaG]

"lol You sure put a lot of trust that all employers are fair-minded. As far as I know, there's no maximum limit to an employee's wage, so I don't quite understand why you said "if employers were allowed to pay more for deserving employees"."

Employers can afford to pay only so much in wages. If they are restricted to pay the industrious, hard-working, productive and diligent employees the same as the lazy, socialistically-brain-washed, unproductive slugs, obviously your friend, the hard-working one will suffer and SirJosephPorter's friend will benefit.

That's why employers get to choose who is qualified for a job.I did when we ran our gift shop. The lazy ones didn't last long and it had nothing to do with the wages they were getting.

I myself never had to rely on minimum wage, in spite of the fact that as a young person with hardly any knowledge of English managed to find a job where I could earn my living. How many of today's minimum wage "earners" would be willing to muck 15-20 tons of rock every day? Or cut two or more cords of pulp wood? How many of them would be willing to live on savings earned picking tobacco and go get their high school diploma earned in a language other than teir mother tongue?

And, yes, I found employers fair minded. I found that whenever I did my best, they did their best.

You got lucky. Not all employers are fair and decent. I could name a few around the Okanagan and here that aren't.

 

[darkbeaver]

Some teenaged kids do work hard. However, even the good workers often don't show up for work on the weekends or they show up so hung over they can barely function. The ones that actually show up though will probably get through life just fine because they "get it". People like myself, work every weekend because there is about a 100% chance I'm not going to call in and cancel the day due to a hangover.
We're having a terrible storm right now. There will be kids without cars that will call in "sick" simply because they don't want to be out in the storm.
Your friend is not alone in working her 3 jobs. There are lots of people like her and for kids who really want to go to university, lots of them are working at least 3 jobs. I work with kids who are going to school full time and trying to hold down at least 2 jobs so they can get through school. They sit at the lunchroom table trying to get their assignments done during their breaks.
If minimum wage was decent in BC, maybe your friend and others like her could get by on two jobs. Gordon Campbell - grinch!:-(

I believe that you are a very conscientious practical person who has good sense about the value of work. So take the following as observations and questions at large and not any debunking of your own observations of which I'm in general agreement.

A/ I'm guite sure that work has been systematically devalued over the last six decades and historically there is an observable pattern of the same. It's called capital efficiency these days I guess.
B/ all work and no play makes jack a dull boy

C/ I know better now the value of work when I can no longer perform it.

E/ How do you get through the systems glitz to instill practical work ethics and

practices in the young these days when there is no lack of useless games to play?

O/ What role does our celebrity worship of the movers and shakers play in the corrupted state of modern western traditional work ethics?

T/ University is full time labour intensive employment, there is no way it can be an efficient producer of grade A product when the system extracts the labour simultaneously with the study, whatever that might be. So we get undereducated graduates molded for the system and not for the state/nation/life.

B/ Gordon Campbell gives me the creeps, whenever I hear or see him I instinctively think I'm about to be defiled by some of that evil goo that drips out of every pore on his scaled body. :smile:

 

[AnnaG]

i believe that you are a very conscientious practical person who has good sense about the value of work. So take the following as observations and questions at large and not any debunking of your own observations of which i'm in general agreement.

A/ i'm guite sure that work has been systematically devalued over the last six decades and historically there is an observable pattern of the same. It's called capital efficiency these days i guess.
B/ all work and no play makes jack a dull boy

c/ i know better now the value of work when i can no longer perform it.

E/ how do you get through the systems glitz to instill practical work ethics and

practices in the young these days when there is no lack of useless games to play?

O/ what role does our celebrity worship of the movers and shakers play in the corrupted state of modern western traditional work ethics?

T/ university is full time labour intensive employment, there is no way it can be an efficient producer of grade a product when the system extracts the labour simultaneously with the study, whatever that might be. So we get undereducated graduates molded for the system and not for the state/nation/life.

B/ gordon campbell gives me the creeps, whenever i hear or see him i instinctively think i'm about to be defiled by some of that evil goo that drips out of every pore on his scaled body. :smile:

??
A/
b/
c/
e/
o/
t/
b/

 

[Machjo]

India is a developing country, in spite of what some conservatives claim here.

What do conservatives have to do with this? First off, there are two kinds of civilization: spiritual and material.Material civilization alone leads to the kind of 'development' that lead to the two world wars. Spiritual civilization is the foundation on which a just society will be built, with material development serving these just ends.

For a more detailed discussion of the various imperialist implications of the term 'development', you may wish to read up more on Antonio Gramscy's theory on cultural hegemony, also dealt with at length in Phillipson's Linguistic Imperialism. Gramscy was a Marxist by the way (though granted more critically-minded than many others and so ran into hot waters within his own camp), so you can't pin this on conservatives. Phillipson, though not Marxist himself, was still open to Marxist ideas. But they did have a point when it came to cultural hegemony as it relates to the concept of 'development'? By developed, I take it you mean materially developed. You should specify that since the term 'development' is a very culturally, philosophically and religiously loaded term, one understanding of it stemming from the age of empire.

No developing country can be considered civilized.

Again, you're basing it on the Gramscian understanding of 'developed', stemming from the imperial era.

Did you see 'Slumdog millioniare'? Most of the things you see there are based upon real life (little boy jumping into a pile of sh*t, or men removing eyes of little children, making them blind to turn them into beggars etc.), there is very little exaggeration in the movie.

Perhaps. But would you say all Canadians are uncivilized because of what some Canadian adults do to some children?

 

[Machjo]

"lol You sure put a lot of trust that all employers are fair-minded. As far as I know, there's no maximum limit to an employee's wage, so I don't quite understand why you said "if employers were allowed to pay more for deserving employees"."

Employers can afford to pay only so much in wages. If they are restricted to pay the industrious, hard-working, productive and diligent employees the same as the lazy, socialistically-brain-washed, unproductive slugs, obviously your friend, the hard-working one will suffer and SirJosephPorter's friend will benefit.

You seem to assume that all poor people are lazy. Some genuinely have just fallen on bad luck in terms of quality education, health or other. Get yourself a heart.

[quoteI myself never had to rely on minimum wage, in spite of the fact that as a young person with hardly any knowledge of English managed to find a job where I could earn my living. How many of today's minimum wage "earners" would be willing to muck 15-20 tons of rock every day? Or cut two or more cords of pulp wood? How many of them would be willing to live on savings earned picking tobacco and go get their high school diploma earned in a language other than teir mother tongue? [/quote]

That I could agree with. But you seem to make sweeping generalizations.

And, yes, I found employers fair minded. I found that whenever I did my best, they did their best.

I've been lucky with employers too. However, I remember one friend who was not even given the chance at a job because of his skin colour. Another not even at an apartment, and he was going to pay the market price. Certainly you can accept that while some are lazy, others really are just plain unlucky.

 

[Machjo]

??
A/
b/
c/
e/
o/
t/
b/

It's his special new letter order.:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The PC party did not raise minimum wage! I'm not at all sure it has much of anything to do with a Federal government decision. Gordon Campbell, head of the BC Liberal party is the only person blocking raising the minimum wage here. For the most part, I believe only people like wait staff (who get by on tips) are earning minimum wages in this province.

Well, perhaps that is understandable. Your Liberal Party is really old Social Credit Party, isn't it? My understanding is that most Socred members joined the Liberal Party, that is why it came to power.

 

[Machjo]

Another problem I see with minimum wags is the case of the do chasing its tail. If the minimum wage is below the market equilibrium, it's useless anyway because everyone's earning above minimum wage. So for it to have effect, the minimum wage must be raised to above the equilibrium rate, which in at least some cases will simply price workers out of the job market. To counteract that, the government must inflate the currency so as to bring the equilibrium rate above the legal minimum wage, thus resulting in the minimum wage being useless again, and so the process must be repeated all over again, as has been witnessed by the repeated minimum wage increases over the years.

Under a model in which students are well educated like in Sweden, or in Germany where they have c-determination laws, salaries would naturally increase along with the market. I'm not saying that Germany has no minimum wage legislation (though I know Sweden doesn't) but it's only common sense that such laws would give workers more power to negotiate fair wages and so eliminate the need for a minimum wage.

I wouldn't e surprised if Sweden had co-determination laws of its own.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Again, if the minimum wage is not raised to above the equilibrium rate, then it's as if that minimum wage does not even exist. And in those cases where it does go above the equilibrium rate, it will cost jobs. So either way, some people won't even notice the impact, while others will lose their jobs. If the minimum wage is too low, most won't notice. If it's too high, some will lose their jobs. So in the end, in most cases either the minimum wage has no impact or has a negative impact. So either way, what's the point?

Minimum wage is always raised above equilibrium rate. Currently there are many people working for minimum wage. They all will be affected by an increase in the wage.

As to it leading to job losses, again, there is no evidence for it. You don’t see businesses squawking when minimum wage is raised. And businesses are not exactly wall flowers; they make a big stink when they are adversely affected.

And it is only a very near sighted employer who will cut staff because minimum wage is raised. Let us say minimum wage goes up by 50 cents an hour. Employer costs go up by 1000 $ per year. Why would an employer reduce staff because of that? And if there is no business slowdown, if he is getting the same amount of business, how is reducing staff going to help him cope with the business?

Employers make most of staff reduction because demand is falling, rather than because minimum wage is raised. Falling demand can really hurt the business. But there is no evidence that minimum wage hurts the businesses.

And of course it is possible that some employers will reduce staff out of sheer cussedness. It may lead to a few (though insignificant amount) of job losses. However, when you consider that most minimum wage employees will be better off, I think the trade off is worth it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What do conservatives have to do with this? First off, there are two kinds of civilization: spiritual and material.Material civilization alone leads to the kind of 'development' that lead to the two world wars. Spiritual civilization is the foundation on which a just society will be built, with material development serving these just ends.

For a more detailed discussion of the various imperialist implications of the term 'development', you may wish to read up more on Antonio Gramscy's theory on cultural hegemony, also dealt with at length in Phillipson's Linguistic Imperialism. Gramscy was a Marxist by the way (though granted more critically-minded than many others and so ran into hot waters within his own camp), so you can't pin this on conservatives. Phillipson, though not Marxist himself, was still open to Marxist ideas. But they did have a point when it came to cultural hegemony as it relates to the concept of 'development'? By developed, I take it you mean materially developed. You should specify that since the term 'development' is a very culturally, philosophically and religiously loaded term, one understanding of it stemming from the age of empire.

Again, you're basing it on the Gramscian understanding of 'developed', stemming from the imperial era.

Conservatives have nothing to do with it. It is just that whenever I mentioned the (I thought) self evident fact that India is a developing country, quite a few conservatives here invariably contradicted me. I don’t see how it fits into conservative philosophy, it probably doesn’t. But I have debated this issue with conservatives a couple of times here.

And by ‘developed’ I do mean economically developed. That is what is meant by the term developed countries, it normally does not take into account the spiritual wealth.

Perhaps. But would you say all Canadians are uncivilized because of what some Canadian adults do to some children?

If such things happened here in Canada, (unscrupulous adults gouging out eyes of the children, turning them into beggars, making a child carry a crying infant in her arms in the hope that it will generate more begging revenue etc.) frankly, I would be ashamed to call myself a Canadian.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Another problem I see with minimum wags is the case of the do chasing its tail. If the minimum wage is below the market equilibrium, it's useless anyway because everyone's earning above minimum wage. So for it to have effect, the minimum wage must be raised to above the equilibrium rate, which in at least some cases will simply price workers out of the job market. To counteract that, the government must inflate the currency so as to bring the equilibrium rate above the legal minimum wage, thus resulting in the minimum wage being useless again, and so the process must be repeated all over again, as has been witnessed by the repeated minimum wage increases over the years.

Under a model in which students are well educated like in Sweden, or in Germany where they have c-determination laws, salaries would naturally increase along with the market. I'm not saying that Germany has no minimum wage legislation (though I know Sweden doesn't) but it's only common sense that such laws would give workers more power to negotiate fair wages and so eliminate the need for a minimum wage.

I wouldn't e surprised if Sweden had co-determination laws of its own.

I am all for promoting higher education for everybody, that is a good thing. But that should come in addition to minimum wage. And anyway, what you are suggesting is a tall order, you know it ain’t happening. In the absence of that, what is the alternative? It has to be minimum wage.

 

[Machjo]

Minimum wage is always raised above equilibrium rate. Currently there are many people working for minimum wage. They all will be affected by an increase in the wage.

Wrong. Some will risk losing their jobs.

As to it leading to job losses, again, there is no evidence for it. You don’t see businesses squawking when minimum wage is raised. And businesses are not exactly wall flowers; they make a big stink when they are adversely affected.

That's usually because in most cases the minimum wage is raised just pennies above the equilibrium rate. As a result, most get no benefit from it, and few lose from it. Now if you should raise the minimum wage significantly, it would be a whole different story. Then many would lose their jobs, or more likely some will work under the table. Statistics for illegal activities are hard to come by precisely because they're under the table. I've heard a number of stories of people working under the table. Why would an employer want to hire under the table? Replace the minimum wage with co-determination laws and better education for all, and suddenly not only would wages rise, but also an employer's activities would be more transparent to his staff, making it more difficult for him to hire under the table.

Now as for evidence, Socrates had no proof that there were pores in our skin, but he could deduct that if we sweat, the only way the water could go through our skin is if there were holes in it. In like manner, we can deduct that there will always be an equilibrium rate for work in exchange for money. It's logical therefore that those not willing to pay the new minimum wage will lay the worker off, fire him, or possibly even fire him and then rehire him under the table. I would be interested in seeing the statistics, and if the raise in the minimum wage is in fact effectively above the equilibrium rate, that people would lose their jobs. And if not, that there would be no significant change to overall wages, rendering the raise essentially useless. No proof is needed for that, only logic. A minimum wage is an arbitrary price floor.

And it is only a very near sighted employer who will cut staff because minimum wage is raised. Let us say minimum wage goes up by 50 cents an hour. Employer costs go up by 1000 $ per year. Why would an employer reduce staff because of that?

Because prior to that his employee was making him just enough to make it worthwhile hiring him. If that's the case, then we'd just legislated that worker out of a job. Or, alternatively, if that employer is making a killing out of that employee, he'll laugh the law in the face, pay the minimum wage, and continue to exploit the worker if he should have somehow monopolized the worker's employment options.

With co-determination laws, minus a minimum wage, the first employee would get to keep his job and the second would have more power to negotiate a fairer deal. Then the question becomes: How to we raise the poorer worker's standard of living? Simple: provide him with a quality education so that he will have something of more value to offer to his employer.

And if there is no business slowdown, if he is getting the same amount of business, how is reducing staff going to help him cope with the business?

Again, if business is booming and he's making a killing of his minimum wage staff, then he might very well just laugh the minimum wage in the face, pay it, and continue exploiting that staff if he'd somehow monopolized their employment options, which could be the case in some cases, especially in smaller or more isolated towns, or where the worker has more limited access to transportation to seek better jobs farther away, etc. Again, co-determination legislation would then prove much more valuable in that it would allow those workers to negotiate above minimum wage. And if this is not the case, and the worker's previous salary made it just worth while keeping him, then we'll have just legislated him out of work.

Employers make most of staff reduction because demand is falling, rather than because minimum wage is raised.

Falling demand can really hurt the business. But there is no evidence that minimum wage hurts the businesses.

Not necessarily. It's a proportional scale. Let's say business grows by 1% but the minimum wage is doubled or even tripled. What do you think will happen to those workers? They're out of a job. Inversely, let's say profits quadruple and the minimum wage is raised by 1%. They all get to keep their jobs, and the employer is laughing in the face of the minimum wage laws, unless of course the workers do have other employment options, in which case they'll be more able to negotiate well above the minimum wage, thus rendering it useless to them. So again, either it puts you out of work, or it's of no value to you anyway. So either it does nothing for you, or it hurts you.

And of course it is possible that some employers will reduce staff out of sheer cussedness.

Again, not necessarily. Let's say yo're employer hiring me at minimum wage, and I'm making you just enough money to pay my wage, cover all the legal and administrative costs relating to me, and make you a barely reasonable profit. You'll keep me because, though I'm not very useful to you, I'm still useful enough, albeit barely. In that case, even the slightest raise in the minimum wage will force you to lay me off not because you hate me, but because my position was fragile already (maybe you were keeping me in part since I was making you a small profit, and in part out of compassion). Had the minimum wage not been raised, you might have kept me. Now that it's raised, the profit motive is gone. Even if you don't lay me off right away out of compassion, you will eventually, or alternatively will not hire another like me, allowing me to keep my job, but having legislated a new high school graduate out of the market. So we have to consider not only layoffs, but also the drop in new hires.

It may lead to a few (though insignificant amount) of job losses.

A few is a few. Job loss can be tragic when a person needs money to live. It's not statistics, or should I say those who lose their jobs ARE the statistics. Small as it may be, it's a tragedy.

However, when you consider that most minimum wage employees will be better off, I think the trade off is worth it.

What? Better off out of a job? Again, even if they keep their job, we have to consider those entering the job market too. And again, co-determination laws would allow them to negotiate a fair wage on their own.

The only time I could defend minimum wage laws would be if they were attached to direct government assistance. In other words, if a person goes to an employer, and that employer refuses to hire him specifically because of the minimum wage laws (i.e. not because the employer simply does not need staff regardless of salary, or because that worker is lazy, or smelly, etc.), he could always request a letter from the employer to that effect, present it to the government, and the government would be legally bound, seeing that its own legislation put him out of work, to pay for his education (and pay him minimum wage while he's there, seeing that as per their own laws he's entitled to it) so as to make him worth minimum wage or above. In any other case I could not accept minimum wage laws. Power comes with responsibility. If the government has the right to enforce minimum wage laws, then it also has the duty to compensate those who are hurt by these laws. The two must go hand in hand, but unfortunately they don't.

In Sweden, the government provides quality education for all, including the unemployed. Germany has co-determination laws allowing workers to negotiate fair wages. In both of these cases, minimum wage laws become unnecessary, though as I'd mentioned above, I don't know if Germany has minimum wage legislation or not.

 

[Machjo]

And by ‘developed’ I do mean economically developed. That is what is meant by the term developed countries, it normally does not take into account the spiritual wealth.

Again, this is where Philipson and a few other scholars would disagree. In two of his books that i'd read, but sepecially in 'Linguistic Imperialism', he makes much reference to Western-oriented terminology to ensure that 'we' are always above 'them'. Thus any area where the 'third world' might be our equal or superior, we must downplay it. And where we clearly have the upper hand, such as material wealth, so those are the concepts that end up being absorbed into the meaning of 'developed'. And once that idea enters the collective psyche, whereby the Western values become normalized, all must strive to achieve that definition of development since, after all, no one wants to be less 'developed'. This is where he also makes reference to Gramscian 'common sense', which is not common sense at all, but rather just cultural hegemony thus preventing us from considering any other viewpoint to be equally 'commonsensical'. 'Linguistic Iperialism' really is a good book, and there is not much to disagree with in it seeing that Phillipson focuses mostly on factual information. His other book, English-Only Europe:Challenging Language Policy, is different in that if focuses more on suggestions and recommendations, and though I agreed on some points, I also found myself opposed to many too. But as for the problems associated with cultural hegemony and their economic, political and military impact on world society, his older book Linguistic Imperialism is truly insightful and challenges many assumptions about international relations.

[/quote]If such things happened here in Canada, (unscrupulous adults gouging out eyes of the children, turning them into beggars, making a child carry a crying infant in her arms in the hope that it will generate more begging revenue etc.) frankly, I would be ashamed to call myself a Canadian.[/QUOTE]

And what about murders and mutilations that do occur? When it's our side, it's the individual's fault. When it's theirs, it has to do with their civilization, as if their cultural teachings accept such behaviour. Most societies are similar when it comes to what they accept and don't accept as civilized behaviour.

 

[Avro]

Hello Machjo.

I own or am part owner of 4 buisnesses and currently working on my fifth.

I can tell you from practical experience you are full of crap.

 

[Machjo]

I am all for promoting higher education for everybody, that is a good thing. But that should come in addition to minimum wage. And anyway, what you are suggesting is a tall order, you know it ain’t happening. In the absence of that, what is the alternative? It has to be minimum wage.

If a worker does not have a high education, and especially if his job options are more limited owing to lack of transportation to other work, etc. then the minimum wage will do nothing more than risk legislating him out of work.

Again, the only condition under which I could accept minimum wage legislation is if the government accept responsibility for all who are adversely affected by it. In other words, if you go to an employer, and he's willing to sign a paper stating that he's refusing to hire you specifically owing to the current minimum wage legislation, then the government should be required to pay you minimum wage and pay for your further education until you have the necessary education to go back into the workforce at a higher wage. If the government is not prepared to take on that responsibility, the it essentially forfeits its moral (to be distinguished from legal) right to impose any minimum wage on you. When a person is adversely affected by government legislation, he does have a right to compensation.

And since i doubt many would be willing for the government to accept such a responsibility, then I'd say scrap the minimum wage or allow people to hire under the table as happens already by the way. So how do we deal with under-the-table work caused by minimum wage laws, might I ask?

 

[Machjo]

Hello Machjo.

I own or am part owner of 4 buisnesses and currently working on my fifth.

I can tell you from practical experience you are full of crap.

Sorry, but 'full of crap' doesn't say much to me other than that I have some digestive issues, which I don't. So would you care to explain?

Let me ask you this: are your employees already above minimum wage? If so, then of what value are the minimum age laws to you? And if they were just at minimum wage prior to the new legislation, then why did it take new legislation for you to raise it if you could in fact have afforded such a raise prior? And also, what are your workers' work option? In most cases, especially if they live in a city or at least have access to reliable transportation, then they do have the option to look for a better deal elsewhere. Though it is conceivable that n some much smaller and more isolated communities, that competition for workers in the job market is more limited such as in a one-factory town or a mining town. In such cases, an exploitative employer could theoretically keep wages farther below profit.

And again, what would be the difference between the government constantly revising minimum wage laws and simply introducing co-determination legislation so as to allow workers and employers to negotiate their own wages? Answering those questions would e much more enlightening than trying to guess at my bowel condition (not that it's any of your business, nor relevant to the topic at hand).

 

[Avro]

Sorry, but 'full of crap' doesn't say much to me other than that I have some digestive issues, which I don't. So would you care to explain?

Let me ask you this: are your employees already above minimum wage? If so, then of what value are the minimum age laws to you? And if they were just at minimum wage prior to the new legislation, then why did it take new legislation for you to raise it if you could in fact have afforded such a raise prior? And also, what are your workers' work option? In most cases, especially if they live in a city or at least have access to reliable transportation, then they do have the option to look for a better deal elsewhere. Though it is conceivable that n some much smaller and more isolated communities, that competition for workers in the job market is more limited such as in a one-factory town or a mining town. In such cases, an exploitative employer could theoretically keep wages farther below profit.

And again, what would be the difference between the government constantly revising minimum wage laws and simply introducing co-determination legislation so as to allow workers and employers to negotiate their own wages? Answering those questions would e much more enlightening than trying to guess at my bowel condition (not that it's any of your business, nor relevant to the topic at hand).

Minimum wage isn't of any value to me....I'm an employer..they are however of great value to the employee and I have never once considered laying someone off because of a few pennies.


If that's the case, the business is doomed anyways....I've seen it and been part of it.

Read all the books you want bub but in the real world it doesn't amount to a bowl of crap....something you are full of.

Run a successful business and you will see why.

Have a good one.;-)

 

[Machjo]

Minimum wage isn't of any value to me....I'm an employer..they are however of great value to the employee and I have never once considered laying someone off because of a few pennies.

So why then did you not just pay those extra pennies prior to the minimum wage legislation? Had the government simply given the workers the power to negotiate on equal terms, they might have been earning those pennies already before the legislation passed. So from the workers' perspective, just giving them more negotiating power would be more useful than minimum wage legislation for which they have to wait and are at the mercy of the government's whims.

If that's the case, the business is doomed anyways....I've seen it and been part of it.

That depends. If it's a small raise in the minimum wage, that might not make a big difference, but then what's its point? You yourself admitted that it's but a matter of pennies. And a high raise that actually would be theoretically worthwhile would most certainly lay workers off and certainly could make a difference between success and failure.

So it comes down to the same issue originally mentioned before. Either the raise is so low as to be pointless, or if it is raised to make a significant difference, it certainly would cause layoffs. You yourself admitted that a small raise in the minimum wage is but a matter of pennies.

I'm quite happy with my current profession and do earn well above minimum wage. From that standpoint, the minimum wage is of no use to me. On the other hand, I've heard of enough cases of employers hiring under the table. Why might that be? Have you had experience of that? If not, then clearly there are other business experiences out there that you yourself have not experienced and can only theorize on. So, why would we be hearing so much of under-the-table work? And ow would you propose eliminating that?