Oklahoma bans cities from raising minimum wage

Post Reply New Topic

I hear that. I hate useful stuff. My family no longer get me presents for birthdays/xmas, because the only things they know how to buy are useless junk that just sits on a shelf. If it isn't necessary and practical, I have little use for it.

If only I didn't have to wear a pointless tie to work, I'd be a much happier man.

The only presents I really enjoy are for the most part DVD's and books.

This "solution" seems very complicated - it would require the government to determine which "tier" each job should fall into.

There's no need to set higher minimum wages for more skilled jobs - the market does that. We just need to make sure that people earn enough to live, and particularly that they don't need to turn to the government to subsidise their wages too much.

This is how I think they should do it, like at fast food. Pay by the volume of business. Like when the local DQ opened up, it was non stop business from open to close for weeks. The employees never got a break. They should get paid a percentage of those windfall profits.

^^^
That's certainly a good idea!

I'll avoid making a sarcastic remark and just point out that you can't make a business pay workers based on incremental performance. Many companies operate at a loss until one point in the year which is their busy season. Windfalls this month could be losses next month. Do you withhold pay if the company isn't making money?

My idea for "tiered" admittedly would be complex, but again, if you want to give people a "livable wage" as a minimum standard, you will effectively eliminate all easy jobs in the nation. Nobody is going to pay someone $14/hour and not get their money's worth. People who don't want to do the work required will be unemployable. Their choice, but guess who will get stuck supporting them?

Then you have disabled people who can't do the work. You're just forcing more of them to depend on welfare rather than being able to support themselves.

Employers don't mind paying more if they get their money's worth. The problem is that nothing goes as planned. When I was working in a chip plant (potato chips), my pay was based on a packing rate of 60 bags/minute. It was a hectic pace and non-stop. Ideally 30 bags/minute was more sustainable, but it was not cost-effective for the company. Never mind that most days I wasn't even doing 60 bags/minute because of mechanical issues with the equipment. They couldn't blame me if the equipment wasn't working, but they could fire me if I couldn't maintain the pace when it was working.

They complained about not having people to do the work. I felt they either needed to (1) slow the machines down and pay people less in order to balance the cost factor but still keep reliable workers or (2) do more to retain the kind of people they needed on the job.

Why would you be sarcastic? It's only fair. If you are paying < $10 an hour you already are withholding pay. If employees are subjected to the non stop grind of 500 customers a day yes they should be fairly compensated. If they stand around not doing much, they should get paid for standing around, not doing much but nothing more. It's a competitive, common sense approach.
You having a knee-jerk, sarcastic reaction is proof you do not want to pay an employee for actual work which is something I believe in.

Besides the only time min. wage matters is when it's something like $15 an hour otherwise don't bother. You forget interns work for free. So it really isn't an issue in the first place unless the min. wage is an actual viable amount not just some silly $6 an hour which if you divide by 60 it's ten cents a minute? Might as well be 0 cents.
What does 10 cents a minute buy you? NOTHING.

lel

Still true, though.

If you make them pay more but they don't get something more in return, they will complain and fight the proposal.

Most any place that pays more often expects more than the place that pays less.

Government work appears to be the lone exception.

Why should I pay an employee more when there are thousands more desperate for work that will gladly work themselves to death for the same amount, if not less? Better yet, why not move production over to China or Vietnam where I can pay employees in "not being executed"?

Or just pay them a box to live in and leftover scraps to eat?

Which reminds me. We had a factory like that in OK and the owners got busted for importing people from India and virtually enslaving them in Oklahoma.

If you make them pay more, they will fight it no matter what, regardless of what they get in return. Minimizing expenses is more important than anything other than maximizing revenue. Treating employees like human beings is a financial liability in a competitive market.

Why not a standardized wage with a monthly profit sharing incentive? Increased profits for the company = higher paycheck for the month. No profit = no extra cash in the paycheck. Seems to me like a way to increase motivation and productivity.

And paying by volume of business would work fairly well in a well structured business (for most low wage/low level goods and services jobs, anyway), provided that the rate varied with varying volume.

Lincoln must have been rolling in his grave.

It's not about increasing motivation, more about what the person is doing at work. Fast food is a great example. Sometimes, one opens and it's non stop customers in the drive thru from open til close. I have seen it in my neighborhood and then feel sorry for employees getting paid minimum wage, if any are. It's just constant activity practically for free if they get minimum. It's definitely not fair because that is both physically and mentally exhausting, waiting on people non stop for hours with maybe one break.