SoulWinner
Commander
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2002
- Messages
- 2,423
Anyone with a modicum of knowledge regarding economics knows that a Federal or state mandated minimum wage knows that employers are absolved of any impetus to pay higher. The beauty of capitalism is that all prices and wages are set by the consumer, thus negating the need for price controls. One look at the result of California's price controls on energy show that government meddling in market forces is not beneficial to the market or the consumer.
Starting wages are limited by many factors. It costs business money to comply with federal employment mandates, which is money that COULD be paid to the worker. Complying with IRS, EPA, EOC, ADA mandates cost employers billions of dollars every year.Government regulations and "Acts" such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or American Family Leave Act are defacto taxes as they constitute costs to business that result from government intrusion into the economy.
Is there a better way to handle staring remuneration? Several. Letting employers set wages and see who applies to job is one good way. Either applicants appear or they do not.
How about this. Say an employer has an opening for a position that entails stuffing envelopes. My wife took a job several years ago doing just this. Say the employer hires two people; one who is paid based on the number of envelopes stuffed each day, the other paid whatever the prevailing minimum wage is. Which employee will provide the employer with what the employer wants, which is the greatest number of stuffed envelopes in a given eight hour period. The answer is self evident.
Unless you are a doctor or lawyer or biochemist, starting wages are not, and are not meant to be "living wages." High school kids flipping burgers for gas money do not require a living wage. Their parents do. The battle for higher minimum wage is nothing more than thinly veiled socialist policy; one that is having miserable consequences in France. Things like minimum wage, ADA and AFLA are patently un-American. They are tools for a socialist party to gain power by appealing to the lowest common denominator of citizenry, or those who feel guilt because of their success.
Starting wages are limited by many factors. It costs business money to comply with federal employment mandates, which is money that COULD be paid to the worker. Complying with IRS, EPA, EOC, ADA mandates cost employers billions of dollars every year.Government regulations and "Acts" such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or American Family Leave Act are defacto taxes as they constitute costs to business that result from government intrusion into the economy.
Is there a better way to handle staring remuneration? Several. Letting employers set wages and see who applies to job is one good way. Either applicants appear or they do not.
How about this. Say an employer has an opening for a position that entails stuffing envelopes. My wife took a job several years ago doing just this. Say the employer hires two people; one who is paid based on the number of envelopes stuffed each day, the other paid whatever the prevailing minimum wage is. Which employee will provide the employer with what the employer wants, which is the greatest number of stuffed envelopes in a given eight hour period. The answer is self evident.
Unless you are a doctor or lawyer or biochemist, starting wages are not, and are not meant to be "living wages." High school kids flipping burgers for gas money do not require a living wage. Their parents do. The battle for higher minimum wage is nothing more than thinly veiled socialist policy; one that is having miserable consequences in France. Things like minimum wage, ADA and AFLA are patently un-American. They are tools for a socialist party to gain power by appealing to the lowest common denominator of citizenry, or those who feel guilt because of their success.
