GOP tries to kill minimum wage

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm a conservative and would LOVE to agree with those arguing against the minimum wage, but I have seen too many jobs decrease wages and still get workers, illegal workers, to replace legitimate residents.

How about the debate in Texas over illegals being given in state tuition when legal out of state students can't?

How about the border agents being sent to jail while Sandy Burger, a Democrat operative, skates for stealing and destroying confidential documents?

There's nothing but corruption on all sides.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's about time! At least some in congress has the balls to do something right! I wish they could just eliminate the federal minimum wage altogether.

Why?

Why not? People should get paid what they are worth to the company not what some pin-head in washington thinks they should get paid. It's anti-capitalistic and just wrong. Besides, anyone that is trying to raise a family on a minimum wage job has rocks in their head. Improve yourself first, get some job skills and then worry about a family. It's not up to the government to dictate to a private company what the employees should be paid.

Why not? Because businesses and corporations are amoral (neither good nor bad) - they aren't in the business of paying people livable wages, let alone taking care of them. They are in the businesses of making money and especially corporations are under pressure to yield high returns for their shareholders. It's the nature of the beast. Leaving it up to that beast is like having the fox guard the hen house. You're kidding yourself if you believe that being paid what your worth is completely dependent on market demands, particularly in a global economy where factory workers in a Third World can manufacture products at a fraction of the cost that we can here. Should companies pay 12 cents a day to a worker here in America if for the sake of the argument they found Americans desperate enough to work for that pittance? Although there may be a lot of great businesses owners and CEO's who do genuinely care about their employees, the bottom line is maximizing profits even at the expense of the employees.

I'd be for other alternate solutions like, how about setting limits on the ratio of highest paid to lowest? Or tying wages to profit percentages? That would work for smaller businesses if they're profit margins are lower. Or even better, have the majority of corporations's stock owned by its employees. Or how about fixing our trade deficit? Establish fair trade?

There wouldn't be much fun in watching this year's Superbowl if each team was able to do whatever they want (no regulations) in order to win - survival of the fittest as you put it I believe. You gotta have refs, and regulations, otherwise the team that spends the most money and juices their players up with steroids and other drugs will have an unfair advantage every time.

When it comes to wages there should be NO regulations at all. If some company wants to pay a worker 12 cents an hour they simply would not have anyone working for them. People should be paid what they are worth. If they have marketable skills then they can go where they want. If company A pays a lower wage than company B then the workers will go to company B. When company A sees that if they want skilled workers then they will pay more than company B. If the government steps in and sets an artificial wage then it kills the competition for the skilled workers. It's government mandated price fixing.

Well, that's where we disagree. As a driver on the road, I have to obey the traffic laws and those laws for the most part are reasonable. A business is no different and should abide by rules and regulations that protect the interests of both employer and employee. We have all kinds of business laws that protect the rights of the employer and in turn it should go both ways. In a perfect world, Gary, we could all just choose employers based on which ones will be most beneficial to us, the way employers choose which workers will be most beneficial to them, but reality has demonstrated that true choice often does not exist. For example, if you computer programmer here in the states, and US companies started outsourcing to places like India where they can find programmer for a fraction of what they were paying you, then you won't have a choice but to either accept a dramatic wage cut or find another profession. Leaving wages entirely up to the market is wreckless, especially when the market has loopholes and unfair trade that create an imbalance of labor.

Apples and oranges Steve. If you don't like the job you have then change it. If you choose not to then you get what you deserve. I didn't like my job and I put myself on the market. I had companies falling all over themselves offering me a job. Why? Because I took the time to improve myself. I started out at the minimum wage. I didn't like that so I applied myself and improved my work skills. When I became dissatisfied with what I made at that job I did it again. Eventually I was in the drivers seat as far as my wages go. I have changed profession at least 5 times in the last 30 years. When I saw an opportunity I did what I had to do to take that. A large minimum wage kills that incentive. Why should someone work hard to improve themselves if the government just hands it to them? I creates a lazy work force that will eventually not be able to compete in the global market. It's like welfare, if you just hand someone something then why should the try to improve? It's a basic way of thinking. If you make it easy then you remove all reason for someone to work hard to get more. They would rather let the government just give it to them.

Gary, IMO, it's oversimplification to say that whatever pay a company gives you is what you are worth. Take a look at the pay scales of CEO's in recent history - especially to the ones where the company's profits were tanking while they got big fat pay raises. There has been large scale gross imbalances of pay with regard to the those on top, while the lowest paid wages have remained stagnant and there's no logical explanation when you talking about ratios - highest to lowest paid worker.

All a minimum wage does is set a limit as to how low a company could get away with paying someone. The minimum wage should be based on many factors that the market does not take into consideration.

[GaryC 7]

I'm a conservative and would LOVE to agree with those arguing against the minimum wage, but I have seen too many jobs decrease wages and still get workers, illegal workers, to replace legitimate residents.

The whole point is that if you make yourself valuable to an employer then you have the ability to set your own wage. There will never be an illegal take my job. If they had the ability to do what I do then they wouldn't be sneaking in. A person needs to get themselves out of the bottom of the work force and the wages will take care of itself.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People should get paid what they are worth to the company not what some pin-head in washington thinks they should get paid. It's anti-capitalistic and just wrong.

You think that top execs are really worth to their employers what they're getting paid - or rather handed out? You think the Home Depot CEO that presided over a pi$$poor performance of the company was worth the millions he got paid while doing such a pi$$poor job and the additional 210million he got for getting canned? Do you really think they're worth these outrageous handouts? Do you believe that the average CEO today is worth 500 times what the entry level employee in his/her company is worth while that ratio was in the range of 20-40 times just a few short decades ago?

Has CEO productivity outpaced the productivity of other employees that much over the years? Do you really believe that? Isn't the reality in corporate America today that companies make all the waves to Wall Street on how they grew revenues and earnings and return on equity by double digits while telling their rank and file employees that raises are going to be merely in the range of inflation since the company needs to watch expenses? Yet they turn around and award huge bonuses to top execs like there's no tomorrow? You believe that this is an accurate reflection of what employees are worth to a company?

If you don't, then you're admitting that the private industry has miserably failed in compensating employees based on what they're worth. If you do, then I am at a loss for words...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm a conservative and would LOVE to agree with those arguing against the minimum wage, but I have seen too many jobs decrease wages and still get workers, illegal workers, to replace legitimate residents.

The whole point is that if you make yourself valuable to an employer then you have the ability to set your own wage. There will never be an illegal take my job. If they had the ability to do what I do then they wouldn't be sneaking in. A person needs to get themselves out of the bottom of the work force and the wages will take care of itself.

Not everyone who is being replaced for lower wages is uneducated. It's happening to well-educated, experienced IT people. IT holds three out of the top ten fastest growing professsions (the rest are in health care). If it can happen to them, it can happen to alot of educated people, especially since legislators want illegals to have in-state college tuition Americans can't get. Not all illegals are uneducated; that's a fallacy. They caught one heading up a state agency in California.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[GaryC 7]

People should get paid what they are worth to the company not what some pin-head in washington thinks they should get paid. It's anti-capitalistic and just wrong.

You think that top execs are really worth to their employers what they're getting paid - or rather handed out? You think the Home Depot CEO that presided over a pi$$poor performance of the company was worth the millions he got paid while doing such a pi$$poor job and the additional 210million he got for getting canned? Do you really think they're worth these outrageous handouts? Do you believe that the average CEO today is worth 500 times what the entry level employee in his/her company is worth while that ratio was in the range of 20-40 times just a few short decades ago?

Has CEO productivity outpaced the productivity of other employees that much over the years? Do you really believe that? Isn't the reality in corporate America today that companies make all the waves to Wall Street on how they grew revenues and earnings and return on equity by double digits while telling their rank and file employees that raises are going to be merely in the range of inflation since the company needs to watch expenses? Yet they turn around and award huge bonuses to top execs like there's no tomorrow? You believe that this is an accurate reflection of what employees are worth to a company?

If you don't, then you're admitting that the private industry has miserably failed in compensating employees based on what they're worth. If you do, then I am at a loss for words...

What CEO's get paid is really besides the point. Since very few of us will ever be CEO's then worrying about what they make is only class envy. I really don't care if some CEO makes 100mill. If they were suddenly all paid less than 100K it wouldn't change what anyone else makes. So when someone tries to make a point by citing how much a CEO makes it doesn't make the point with me. Let them get theirs and I will get mine.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People should get paid what they are worth to the company not what some pin-head in washington thinks they should get paid. It's anti-capitalistic and just wrong.

You think that top execs are really worth to their employers what they're getting paid - or rather handed out? You think the Home Depot CEO that presided over a pi$$poor performance of the company was worth the millions he got paid while doing such a pi$$poor job and the additional 210million he got for getting canned? Do you really think they're worth these outrageous handouts? Do you believe that the average CEO today is worth 500 times what the entry level employee in his/her company is worth while that ratio was in the range of 20-40 times just a few short decades ago?

Has CEO productivity outpaced the productivity of other employees that much over the years? Do you really believe that? Isn't the reality in corporate America today that companies make all the waves to Wall Street on how they grew revenues and earnings and return on equity by double digits while telling their rank and file employees that raises are going to be merely in the range of inflation since the company needs to watch expenses? Yet they turn around and award huge bonuses to top execs like there's no tomorrow? You believe that this is an accurate reflection of what employees are worth to a company?

If you don't, then you're admitting that the private industry has miserably failed in compensating employees based on what they're worth. If you do, then I am at a loss for words...

What CEO's get paid is really besides the point. Since very few of us will ever be CEO's then worrying about what they make is only class envy. I really don't care if some CEO makes 100mill. If they were suddenly all paid less than 100K it wouldn't change what anyone else makes. So when someone tries to make a point by citing how much a CEO makes it doesn't make the point with me. Let them get theirs and I will get mine.

You were essentially suggesting that the market is able to regulate that each employee is paid what (s)he is worth to the employer. The ridiculous disparities I outlined above (and that's not just the CEO's) clearly show that that suggestion is incorrect. Regulation is needed to some degree - and not just at the bottom of pay scale but also at the top.

Edited January 26, 2007 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

You were essentially suggesting that the market is able to regulate that each employee is paid what (s)he is worth to the employer. The ridiculous disparities I outlined above (and that's not just the CEO's) clearly show that that suggestion is incorrect. Regulation is needed to some degree - and not just at the bottom of pay scale but also at the top.

We will have to agree to disagree then. I think there should me no regulation at all on wages for the bottom or the top. Let the market dictate what people are paid and our economic health of our country will be much better. I have called myself a conservative for quite a while. That isn't really true. I am more of a libertarian. The less a government gets involved in anything the better I like it. I wish they could just go back to doing what the constitution explicitly states they can do and stop everything else.