all minimum wage laws should be abolished

[FrankTheTank]

[ QUOTE ]
Politicians do a lot of things that they know have negative consequences on the country in order to shore up special interest support for the next campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well of course, but wouldn't this lead to less government support for minimum wage and worker rights/benefits? I don't think Big Minimum Wage Labor is sending quite as many lobbyists to Washington as big business interests.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a fair amount of opposition to the minimum wage in the UK when it was introduced a few years back. However, the economy was not adversely affected as feared. No mainstream parties now oppose the minimum wage here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes and you could raise with 27o every time you get it and not lose your bankroll in a week but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea. We should always strive to do what is best instead of merely settling for something that isn’t terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but if you raise with 27o as opposed to just good hands, THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME is you will lose. It's not just the UK but most European countries that have high minimum wage laws as far as I know and they are all doing fine. Maybe they're having an incredible run of luck raising their 27o every hand but while possible it is far fetched.

[SheetWise]

Every economically literate person knows the MW is a disaster. At the national level D's pass these laws at viably low levels to throw a bone their socialist constituency. They can then scream that they wanted more, but the nasty R's fought them.

If you look at communities that actually believe in socialism, you will find that they are passing "Living Wages" laws. In these districts you can find the real results of interfering with the marketplace.

I've only owned one business where I hired entry level workers. About 20 years ago I owned a bindery house. The average worker at that time made about $10 an hour. When I hired an unskilled entry level employee, I would pay them $5 an hour. First, I had to take a skilled employee to train them -- so my cost in the first month was now $15 an hour. I was a actually getting less work for the premium wage, because of the time the skilled worker spent training them. Within 60 days the newbie was trained on enough equipment to work alone. I would recover my costs over the next 30 days, and by 90 days I would have them up to $10 an hour. If you think about it, I had to pay them -- otherwise they would go work for a competitor, as they were now skilled employees. It's only people who are not learning any marketable skills that remain at the bottom pay scale.

What I really find interesting is that I rarely hired unskilled workers. If I could have paid them $1 an hour, I would have hired a lot more -- because it wouldn't have set be back (and that's really expensive if the employee doesn't pan out). And at $1 an hour, I would still have moved them to $10 an hour in 90 days.

Enter the Government.

It's illegal to have someone earn $1 an hour for 90 days to learn $10 an hour skills -- but it's OK for them to go to a trade school and go $10,000 in debt over two years to learn the same skills. In fact, the government will provide the loans.

And my experience with trade schools was that they rarely teach any real world skills -- and are essentially there to take government grants.

You figure it out.

nice post sheetwise

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

I've only owned one business where I hired entry level workers. About 20 years ago I owned a bindery house. The average worker at that time made about $10 an hour. When I hired an unskilled entry level employee, I would pay them $5 an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. I do find it interesting, however, that while you're complaining about having to pay a minimum wage, you're saying that you started your employees at half again the then-current minimum. The government wasn't making you pay them that much; presumably you paid that much because competent people wouldn't work for less.

Personally, I don't really have an opinion on the minimum wage; I haven't worked for minimum since I was 15 and couldn't afford to work for twice minimum today. I would imagine that holds true in general: if you want someone older than 16 who's halfway qualified, you're going to have to pay more anyway.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I would imagine that holds true in general: if you want someone older than 16 who's halfway qualified, you're going to have to pay more anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely right. Min wage only affects a select few.

But the fact that stupid min wage laws are even on the books is indicative of either ignorance or pandering, neither of which should be tolerated by us, the citizens who must live under these ignorant/pandering laws.

natedogg

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would imagine that holds true in general: if you want someone older than 16 who's halfway qualified, you're going to have to pay more anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely right. Min wage only affects a select few.

But the fact that stupid min wage laws are even on the books is indicative of either ignorance or pandering, neither of which should be tolerated by us, the citizens who must live under these ignorant/pandering laws.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't half the laws on the books these days just there because of politicians pandering to special interests?

I really am interested in this issue, and I really would like to hear arguments on both sides of it. Unfortunately, this thread seems to be a mix of taking things to an extreme (like the OP's asking why we don't make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour - anything would sound silly taken to that extreme. Why not ask if pro-lifers think all masturbation ought to be illegal since the sperm never get a shot at life?) or people insulting others who don't hold the same views.

[FrankTheTank]

Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.

[Il_Mostro]

So basically the argument is that it's the fact that the law is there that's bad? If it only affects a select few it really can't mean much, in reality?

I don't know anything about min. wage, we do it in other ways in Sweden, ways which you would hate, I'm sure.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
The government wasn't making you pay them that much; presumably you paid that much because competent people wouldn't work for less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hired them when I was buried in work and couldn't find skilled labor. I'd usually hire them just to fetch, lift and carry until things got caught up -- and if they were sharp, we'd start training them when things slowed down. The point was that I would always take a skilled worker first, because of MW. If I could have trained them for free or for a low wage, I would probably have taken the trainee first -- more loyalty.