Alex
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- May 29, 2006
- Messages
- 696
not only "no", but HELL TO THE NO.
Maybe. But only if you think the govt can invest that money better than the individuals who earned it. What do you think rich people do with their money - light cigars with it? It gets invested, often in growth companies that provide jobs. It gets spent. When it gets spent, it buys things that other people made, also providing jobs.
And why set an amount that we should 'take' from people upfront, just because it will still leave them with something? Seems backwards to me.
Figure what the govt really needs to spend, then do the math to fund it. Repeat as needed.
-ERD50
i think part of the problem is how much the system is reliant on egocentric electeds to make the right decision?!
The clarity of your logic and force of your argument are startlingly refreshing.
..............I was told that Henry Ford paid his line workers a higher than normal wage, so they could afford to buy his cars..............
Hi ERD, my former employer (retail) for competitive reasons sought to be the employer of choice in their field - so they paid better wages and benefits than the competition, there by able to pick a relatively higher level of motivated competent employee to deal with the guests. Guests were relatively happier with their experience and continued to bring their trade to our stores. Resulted in higher sales and because of meeting success with this formula resulted in expansion and more jobs. Employees were given ongoing store discount so some of the wages ended back with the company - a mutually beneficial relationship was established with higher wage and benefits and cheaper goods for the employee and better and more loyal employee and thus better experience for the guests and thus more sales for the ever growing company. This is a real world example of how raising the wage bar can work.
IIRC, in the book Ford: The Men and the Machine it was stated that Ford only paid those wages because the farm boys he hired couldn't take the monotony of the line and quit soon after hiring in. The $5 wage was to limit turnover.
everyone got the same higher wage so in effect across the board...unfortunately not everyone is so enlightened and needs encouragement to do the right thing.....exploitation of illegals comes to mind...defacto importation of illegals to artificially keep wages low in an area also...Excellent example, thanks DanTien.
But (I think) there is a difference between an across the board wage increase, and your story.
RE: 'there by able to pick a relatively higher level of motivated competent employee'.
So this was not an arbitrary 'raise everyone's salary', it was a free market 'offer more money to get better people', approach. Makes perfect sense to me, and one reason I'm inclined against raising the min wage.
So I ask, while business owners are free to make this decision for themselves, why would we want the govt mandating it?
-ERD50
everyone got the same higher wage so in effect across the board...unfortunately not everyone is so enlightened and needs encouragement to do the right thing.....exploitation of illegals comes to mind...defacto importation of illegals to artificially keep wages low in an area also...
I see the word 'ILLEGAL' in your other statements. That's different.there by able to pick a relatively higher level of motivated competent employee
Everyone in that one company. Not everyone in the world.everyone got the same higher wage so in effect across the board
initially picked but then everyone had a higher level of base pay going forward based on ratings and length of service...there is a very important role for government to play in protecting the people from the powerful corporations that that are ultimately governed by delivering profits to their shareholders....believe it or not there are companies that don't care about your health and welfare if they can get away with it...not uncommon for government to regulate how a business is run - surely you can think of some examples around were you live...I think we have a better quality of life because we have a powerful force(ultimately We The People and our reps) protecting our interestsNo, 'everyone' in that company, not 'everyone'.
You did say 'pick' didn't you, as in 'hire'? That is my point.
I see the word 'ILLEGAL' in your other statements. That's different.
If a company is not 'enlightened' enough to pay the wages that are required to hire/retain the quality of people that they need, I say let them go out of business. They will be replaced by a better run company. In the long run, everyone wins.
You are arguing that the govt knows better than the business owner just what wages that business owner should offer. Hmmm, should we have the govt decide how much inventory he/she should carry, how to price their goods, what goods to offer, what hours they should stay open, how big a sign they should put out front....? Why is the business owner capable of deciding these things for themselves, but not the wages to offer? Seems like pretty selective logic.
Let the business decide all of that, and let the free market work it out.
That is not to say that regulation is not required in some areas (I'm not an all-or-nothing guy). But I do think we should have some proof that the regulation is better than the free market 'self regulation', before we get our legislators involved.
-ERD50
this was in response to ERD wondering about Ford offering higher wages in earlier post...thanksDanTien,
You posted:
"my former employer (retail) for competitive reasons sought to be the employer of choice in their field - so they paid better wages and benefits than the competition, there by able to pick a relatively higher level of motivated competent employee to deal with the guests. Guests were relatively happier with their experience and continued to bring their trade to our stores. Resulted in higher sales and because of meeting success with this formula resulted in expansion and more jobs. Employees were given ongoing store discount so some of the wages ended back with the company - a mutually beneficial relationship was established with higher wage and benefits and cheaper goods for the employee and better and more loyal employee and thus better experience for the guests and thus more sales for the ever growing company. This is a real world example of how raising the wage bar can work."
Then:
"everyone got the same higher wage so in effect across the board...unfortunately not everyone is so enlightened and needs encouragement to do the right thing"
These are not the same thing as a minimum wage increase. If all companies across the board raised wages, there is no relative motivation that any single company has to attract the better employees.
I like the first example, but to me it is not support for a minimum wage increase.
there is a very important role for government to play in protecting the people from the powerful corporations that that are ultimately governed by delivering profits to their shareholders....
Oh, I believe it - absolutely. See Adam Smith's famous quote on the butcher, baker, brewer.... But, in a free market, you can't really 'get away with it'. Your best workers will go to the competition.believe it or not there are companies that don't care about your health and welfare if they can get away with it...
Again, I agree (getting scary isn't it?). The diff is, I say apply this regulation only when the free market isn't going to do it. Pollution controls are the best example. Tough for one company (or individual) to do the 'right thing' and need to charge a higher price and maybe provide an inferior performing product, if your competition can spew out pollution with no impact. So, regulation is beneficial in some cases. I'm just not convinced that min wage is one of them.not uncommon for government to regulate how a business is run - surely you can think of some examples around were you live...I think we have a better quality of life because we have a powerful force(ultimately We The People and our reps) protecting our interests
I understand your point Zathras, but business has managed to survive and proper when taxes were much higher in days gone by.....some years corps paid over 50% in the 50's, etc.Here Dan, how about this scenario.
A business owner turns the corner and his new small business becomes very profitable.
He pulls in 4 Million dollars this year after paying all business expenses. He then goes to reinvest in his company. He can hire 25 new employees and open up a new shop with a bank loan using his money as collateral.
Ooops, forgot about the 'soak the rich' taxes added on top of the other taxes already paid.
Perhaps he can hire an extra couple of employees and dream about expanding his business if he saves up the money for 20 years??
I understand your point Zathras, but business has managed to survive and proper when taxes were much higher in days gone by.....some years corps paid over 50% in the 50's, etc.
well, perhaps the answer is a more involved citizenry - the electeds have run the business of gubmt amuck and we're all paying for it (literally)...
new thread, campaign finance reform!
Government should mandate No TV/radio advertising for elections - debates and forums, internet? better
Yes!How about free air time - equally divided amongst candidates - the air waves [-]ARE [/-] were given to the broadcasters w/ the exchange that they [-]fleece, delude, pacify [/-] serve the public interest...
I've been meaning to ask - why are the defenders of the wealthy not paying higher taxes so passionate about your position - if you are in that category - I can understand where you're coming from (self-interest) - if not why would you want to defend them? How does it affect you...I'm serious, I want to understand the reasoning
I just feel that in general, free markets work better than govt mandates. There are exceptions, this *may* be one of them, but I'd like to see some evidence of it. I don't have too much problem with costs going up, if there is an overall benefit to society.And why are those against lifting the minimum wage so strongly against it....it will lift your costs? is that it?