after bush threw it out a few months ago with his cronies. obviously they begrudge people a decent lifestyle.
source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558329/)
that is still only Ã,£3.70, very low, going in the right direction i suppose.
Yes it maybe Ã,£3.70 in English but the US economy is not based on GBP, it is based on USD.
Most, if not all items in the US that are forsale in the UK have a direct dollar to pound price. i.e. in the UK its Ã,£2.50, the US will be ~$2.50.
So the US minimum wage of $7.25 is actually a very generous amount.
Quote from: DEViANCEthat is still only Ã,£3.70, very low, going in the right direction i suppose.
Tight fisted Republicans. TBH tho, it is still over 2 dollars an hour more and that is a fairly good increase, when was the last time you got a 35% (ish) payrise? Its about bloody time that this was corrected, the minimum wage in France is around €8 an hour which is still far more than the USA gets... but then again Frances economy is stunted by the Government fisting you if you want to employ someone. Ouch.
Cheers
Tongy
Quote from: NimrodYes it maybe Ã,£3.70 in English but the US economy is not based on GBP, it is based on USD.
Most, if not all items in the US that are forsale in the UK have a direct dollar to pound price. i.e. in the UK its Ã,£2.50, the US will be ~$2.50.
So the US minimum wage of $7.25 is actually a very generous amount.
True, its all relative. Alot of products are cheaper in the USA that is for sure.
I dont understand why republicans merde all over the people that voted them in... mainly low wage earning non-coastal states. Perhaps there is an IQ/states-that-voted-for-bush coefficient.
Cheers
Tongy
$7.25/hr is still awfully low considering that most employers that pay such wages do not offer health insurance. One weeklong illness, and youre homeless on such wages.
Most major cities have a much higher starting wage, tbh, the people getting the really low wages are often invisible workers like home health care providers, and illegal aliens working in meat packing facilities.
Anyway, people are pissing and moaning how theyll not be able to do business with such an increase in cost. Its 99.9% wingnuts that have this opinion. I mean, if you have a BK franchise and have to raise the cost of your lunch special a dollar to stay profitable--Im pretty sure the McDs down the street will as well.
AFAIK, service workers like waiters and pizza delivery guys will still get something like $3/hour, with the rest coming from gratuities. Shameful. A tip should be a tip, not something thats like, "here buddy, hope this covers your wifes medical bills."
Walmart and other retailers that have exploited part timers at low wages will have to raise the cost of bulk sh*tter paper a few pennies, and Americans will absorb the cost w/o even noticing.
Anyway, its about time. Ten years, while congress gave itself several pay raises, is embarrassing. Even Henry Ford, that lovable Jew-hating ultra conservative understood that you need to pay people enough to buy stuff and stimulate the economy, instead of just going into debt.
Should be an amazing year. The house of reps had turned into a cesspool of corruption under GOP rule. Everything from homosexual underage sex scandal, to illegal grafts from lobbyists, to wasting time appeasing the American Christian Taliban, with law passed against stem cell research.
Finally, the grown ups are back in charge. There are a lot of folks over here that say, "but the Democrats are just the same." Which is complete horse hockey. Perhaps thirty years ago. Policy wise Nixon was about as liberal as Clinton in many ways. But these days, the GOP after twelve ruling years, became the long arm of corporate interest and greed, with a really bad white Jesus face taped to the front so Cletus and Brandine would feel compelled to vote for em.
I think minimum wage sucks tbh. If as an employer you can get some mug to do the job for Ã,£/$1p/h then you should be able to do just that. It should be up to the employee to realise that they are being mugged and do something about it.
Capitalism baby, you can poke your socialist ideals :p
Not having a minimum wage puts pressure on the social services of the state. If you dont provide such services, you end up with nominally democratic, but unstable nations such as you see in South America. There is nothing anti capitalistic about minimum wage or requiring health care for all, indeed, as you want to create consumers along with product.
That doesnt make it "right" though, it just means that it is the currently accepted method for maintaining a population at social ease with one another. Not that it truely works hence all the robberies, muggings, thefts etc.
Id opt for paying out a pitance if it meant I could employe a staff of over zelous security men to protect me and my belongings that I have purchased with all the money saved from not paying minimum wage. muhahaha.
Quote from: NimrodThat doesnt make it "right" though, it just means that it is the currently accepted method for maintaining a population at social ease with one another.
Been reading some Ayn Rand or other drivel lately? Thats straight out of her book of memes. :roll:
Quote from: NimrodNot that it truely works hence all the robberies, muggings, thefts etc.
Thats quite facile. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to crime. Keeping the minimum wage too low does make a hard days work pretty unappealing to a lot of kids that choose a hoodlums life.
I support an international minimum wage. If I purchase a sweater kitted in Bagladesh, I want to be sure the garment worker is paid enough to be above the poverty level in their country.
From a fair wage comes dignity and self worth, and from that comes stability. I dont believe in humans as mere commodity to be traded at the lowest price.
Quote from: maximusotterBeen reading some Ayn Rand or other drivel lately? Thats straight out of her book of memes. :roll:
Surprisingly I am quite capable of free thought.
Quote from: maximusotterThats quite facile. There are a multitude of factors that contribute to crime. Keeping the minimum wage too low does make a hard days work pretty unappealing to a lot of kids that choose a hoodlums life.
Facile ? Surely if we lived in a society where everyones self worth was the same there would be absolutely no need for crimes based on self gain ? Mind you, youd probably find a lot more skivers as if the wealth is shared why would anyone actually do any work?
Quote from: maximusotterI support an international minimum wage. If I purchase a sweater kitted in Bagladesh, I want to be sure the garment worker is paid enough to be above the poverty level in their country.
Why ? Does it mean that the garment is made to a higher quality or comes with bells on ? Why would anyone in their right mind want to pay more than they need to for anything ? I can only assume that you give your excess earnings to charity so that the money can be dished out to the needy.
Quote from: maximusotterFrom a fair wage comes dignity and self worth.
Erm, really ? So if youre not being paid you have no dignity and are in fact worthless ? Personally I dont measure people based on their pay check.
Quote from: maximusotter...and from that comes stability.
Stability ? How so ?
People are rarely happy with the material possessions they have and are always striving for more. The minimum wage does not help as it gives people who should be earning pittance more *disposable* income. This intern leads to them desiring possessions that are now more accessible than they would otherwise be. The person borrows money against their minimum wage to purchase said items. This leads to those people who are more highly paid expecting more for themselves and they begin to run up larger debts in the race to self-actualise. Before you know it the entire economy is hinged on the debt run up by people striving for a life that they cannot afford.
Without the minimum wage the entire debt level would be reduced as minimum waged workers would not be able to get themselves into as much debt and the Jones would not find themselves taking on more debt attempting to keep up.
Quote from: maximusotterI dont believe in humans as mere commodity to be traded at the lowest price.
Really ? I guess you must be a sole-trader working for yourself, either that or your have won the lottery.
Quote from: NimrodYes it maybe Ã,£3.70 in English but the US economy is not based on GBP, it is based on USD.
Most, if not all items in the US that are forsale in the UK have a direct dollar to pound price. i.e. in the UK its Ã,£2.50, the US will be ~$2.50.
So the US minimum wage of $7.25 is actually a very generous amount.
Sorry but that is a complete pile of balls - yes the cost of living is cheaper (with the exception the poor cant necessarily afford medical costs) however it isnt as though US companies are massively less inefficient that their European counterparts.
If British companies can afford to pay 5.50 per hour or whatever it is over here then so can US companies tbh...
In fact US companies ought to have less overheads - cost of land is cheaper, cost of fuel is cheaper
I dont understand what youre calling balls ?
Are you saying that the US minimum wage should be the same as the UK minimum wage (or visa-versa) ? i.e. Ã,£5 here should mean ~$10 there ? Why would the US and UK rates be linked ?
*confused*
Im not saying that it should be exactly the same as the UK - but there is no reason why a small rise should harm them.
Is Mac Donalds in the UK twice as efficient as Mac Donalds in the US?
Doubt it
there is no reason why they cant increase their wages to 3.70 per hour when identical businesses can still cope with even higher wage bills over here.
All that will happen is a small amount of price inflation in certain service industry sectors/fast food etc.. & a slightly fairer distribution of wealth. Rich poor divide in the US is skewed a lot more than it is in Europe.
Im not a socialist & Ive got no desire to see any form of large scale wealth distribution however I reckon the people at the very bottom of the pile ought to be given a fair shot - aside from that everything else is fair game and healthy competition.
Id even advocate flat tax - but only with the provision that the first 10K that people earn is tax free so as to ensure that people on minimum wage dont get screwed by direct taxation due to a higher portion of their wealth having to be spent on the cost of living.
Im all in favour of capitalism, social mobility & meritocracy - But I dont believe you can create a true meritocracy unless all the basic provisions in terms of housing, healthcare & education are available to the very poorest.
Minimum wage is especially important in the US as they dont have free health care & little provision is made for social housing (not that Im a big fan of state provided housing - but there is a need for it in some areas).
I dont see how the whole American dream can really be a realistic reality for all Americans unless they make a few fundamental changes to both the minimum wage & health care provision.
my balls are itchy.
the majoryity of the guys i speak to on another forums welcome this increase because they are stuck serving sh*t at mcsh*talds and going to uni at the same time. and they are still pretty much on the edge of being thrown out of their accomodation because its expensive.
i welcome it as well imo.
Ahh right, I see. I agree that a small rise shouldnt harm the companies and I suspect that it probably wont effect prices either as the companies will swallow the loss (at least initially).
I just disagree with the minimum wage. I was bought up to believe that the harder you work the more you earn and to not to expect anything for free.
I find it hard to understand why anyone who has worked their ass off to get to where they are would be happy for other people to have an easier time of it.
I have worked as a paper boy, cleaner, shelf stacker, butcher, tree surgeons mate and data entry clerk; all before finishing Uni where I was paying through the nose to better myself.
...I have never in a Maccy Ds...that is definatley below me.
Quote from: NimrodQuote from: maximusotterFrom a fair wage comes dignity and self worth.
Erm, really ? So if youre not being paid you have no dignity and are in fact worthless ? Personally I dont measure people based on their pay check.
Yes, really. It allows them to pay out of their on earnings rather than rely on the state or charity. One reason Thatchers Britain failed so badly.
Quote from: NimrodQuote from: maximusotter...and from that comes stability.
Stability ? How so ?
People are rarely happy with the material possessions they have and are always striving for more. The minimum wage does not help as it gives people who should be earning pittance more *disposable* income. This intern leads to them desiring possessions that are now more accessible than they would otherwise be. The person borrows money against their minimum wage to purchase said items. This leads to those people who are more highly paid expecting more for themselves and they begin to run up larger debts in the race to self-actualise. Before you know it the entire economy is hinged on the debt run up by people striving for a life that they cannot afford.
Without the minimum wage the entire debt level would be reduced as minimum waged workers would not be able to get themselves into as much debt and the Jones would not find themselves taking on more debt attempting to keep up.
You can equally say the debt level is caused by lenders pushing to lend large sums of money even more than borrowers wanting it, if you dont lend them it then they cant owe too much. Just look at all the adverts on TV.
You can equally well say close down the banks cause they are responsible for the debt.
Quote from: NimrodAhh right, I see. I agree that a small rise shouldnt harm the companies and I suspect that it probably wont effect prices either as the companies will swallow the loss (at least initially).
I just disagree with the minimum wage.
So far business has been better off for the minimum wage, it puts more money into the system at a low level that then flows upwards. Its rather like a big river, the water that rains at the mouth only goes a short way to the sea. Water that falls on the streams goes a much longer way and does more good.
If you dont have money in the system it dries up and those big businessmen at the river mouth wont get anywhere near the money they are at the moment.
Quote from: NimrodI was bought up to believe that the harder you work the more you earn and to not to expect anything for free.
I find it hard to understand why anyone who has worked their ass off to get to where they are would be happy for other people to have an easier time of it.
Its a lie, always has been. Pay does not relate to work output.
A worker is only worth what hes prepared to work for, providing someone is willing to pay them the money. Lets say a UK worker gets Ã,£400 a week, a Chinese worker might only get Ã,£50 or probably a lot less. Does that mean the Chinese worker does less work?
How do you equate someone who works hard all day farming or cleaning drains with someone who picks up a phone, says sell now and makes Ã,£ millions?
For most people you only get what some rich fat b*stand is willing to pay you applies. The minimum wage gives them some hope of a realistic income. Some are repeatedly being caught for not paying the minimum wage and are likely to be heavily fined under new legislation.
Quote from: NimrodI have worked as a paper boy, cleaner, shelf stacker, butcher, tree surgeons mate and data entry clerk; all before finishing Uni where I was paying through the nose to better myself.
...I have never in a Maccy Ds...that is definatley below me.
Which definitely makes you an upper middle class toff in the making.
It also means you will probably never understand economics and will want the corn act brought back.
Quote from: SeriousHow do you equate someone who works hard all day farming or cleaning drains with someone who picks up a phone, says sell now and makes Ã,£ millions?
It is hard for most people like yourself to see it but, as far as the UK is concerned, then out of those three the person who "picks up a phone, says sell now and makes Ã,£ millions?" actually produces more for our economy and the farmer is generally a drain on it.
It used to be manufacturing that made the UK wealthy but now weve got a service based economy. The City of London makes a huge contribution to the UK economy & these days is effectively the financial capital of the world. The amount of money flowing through as part of the global FX market is huge - tis more than New York or Tokyo or anywhere else in the world.
So actually the person clearing the drains does a nice job for us - but it is a simple job that anyone could do and so he will be paid a basic wage. The farmer is generally self employed and has to rely on massive subsidies from the EU in order to survive - he is in control of his own future & if he decides to specialise and go into rare breeds, organic farming etc.. and make a bit more then that is his choice. The trader in a London bank who agrees a forward rate for a German manufacturer wanting to purchase components from a US supplier in US dollars in a few months time & then spends the rest of the day doing similar deals & hedging his positions with other market counter parties will over the course of the year generate millions in tax revenue for the treasury - not to mention generating the income to pay the salaries of all the IT, legal, admin support staff in the bank too. That tax revenue helps pay subsidies to keep the farmer in business & pays for family tax credits & health care for the person who cleans the drains as his tax contribution is likely to be very little compared to what he receives back from the government.
Saying that someone who "picks up a phone, says sell now and makes Ã,£ millions?" isnt doing very much compared to someone cleaning drains is like saying that a top surgeon who just makes a few cuts with a scalpel then does a few stitches isnt doing much compared to the guy who cleans the hospital floors.
Im never going to agree with anyone who argues that someone who cannot pay their own way has no selfworth or dignity, that to me is just wrong. I guess that must prove that the measurement of dignity and selfworth is subjective. Oh and I wont start giving reasons as to why Thatchers Britain worked as that is not what the thread is about.
Lenders assess the risk of lending money based on (amongst others) the income and securities of the lendee. If the lendee does meet the lenders level then the money is not lent; unless the lender believes the lendee will default on a secured loan. A raise in minimum wage increases the number of lendees and the amounts they can borrow. This has nothing to do with the advertising of lending companies nor "banks"; they are providing a service, it is their business. My comments are all about providing the lower paid access to higher borrowings. Perhaps the point you were making and I was missing is that minimum wage people are stupid and more suseptable to advertising *shrug*.
I understand what youre saying about the minimum wage helping business and the economy but it is all relative; supply and demand. If you cannot afford it, you dont buy it (or you borrow); demand drops-> price drops-> sales increase...If everyone can afford it and buys it then demand goes up, price goes up and suddenly everyone needs a pay rise to afford to live.
Quote from: SeriousA worker is only worth what hes prepared to work for, providing someone is willing to pay them the money. Lets say a UK worker gets Ã,£400 a week, a Chinese worker might only get Ã,£50 or probably a lot less. Does that mean the Chinese worker does less work?
No. But it just as easily could mean that the UK worker should be getting paid a lot more, where as the Chinese worker is being paid a fortune to do the same job. Earnings are relative, if they were not we would not have thousands of EU workers coming over grabbing minimum wage jobs only to send home a few pounds a week. Those few pounds in their home countries buys a lot more there than they do here. Its all Apples and Oranges.
Quote from: SeriousHow do you equate someone who works hard all day farming or cleaning drains with someone who picks up a phone, says sell now and makes Ã,£ millions?
Again thats apples and oranges/supply and demand. I suspect that there are fewer (good) traders than (good) plumbers, additionally the risk/cost of what traders do is higher so they are paid more. A plumber could destroy your house and you would lose (if he is not insured) maybe a couple of million. A trader, who afaik cannot be insured, could just as easily lose you millions. On the other hand a plumber may save you a few thousand pounds by doing good work where as a trader could make you millions.
The minimum wage does not imply a realistic wage at all, it just levels the playing field at the bottom end of the labour ladder.
Quote from: SeriousWhich definitely makes you an upper middle class toff in the making.
It also means you will probably never understand economics and will want the corn act brought back.
ooo stereotyping. And I suspect that youre a pre-thatcherite labour voter who wants the upper-level of tax increased to pay for the poor because why should they get more than you ?! You can keep your capped prices, Im all for the free market and making what you can when/where you can; Im surprised you havent figured that out yet.
Quote from: NimrodIm never going to agree with anyone who argues that someone who cannot pay their own way has no selfworth or dignity, that to me is just wrong. I guess that must prove that the measurement of dignity and selfworth is subjective. Oh and I wont start giving reasons as to why Thatchers Britain worked as that is not what the thread is about.
About the only way I have out of that little problem is if I manage to get one of my books published. You do end up with little self worth or dignity. Plenty of people worked hard and ended up being either paid a wage that meant they had to accept benefits just for the basics. In other instances people got thrown out of work rather than the government paying a relatively small amount to keep them working.
Quote from: NimrodLenders assess the risk of lending money based on (amongst others) the income and securities of the lendee. If the lendee does meet the lenders level then the money is not lent; unless the lender believes the lendee will default on a secured loan. A raise in minimum wage increases the number of lendees and the amounts they can borrow. This has nothing to do with the advertising of lending companies nor "banks"; they are providing a service, it is their business. My comments are all about providing the lower paid access to higher borrowings. Perhaps the point you were making and I was missing is that minimum wage people are stupid and more suseptable to advertising *shrug*.
Banks are driven by profit, people who work in them are often paid by commission. People quite often get loans they cannot hope to afford to pay back and are often encouraged by bank employees to lie on the forms. One person was loaned so much by his bank that he ended up committing suicide, in this case they knew exactly how much he was earning because they employed him.
*every* week I get advertising letters through the door offering me loans I cant afford.
Quote from: NimrodI understand what youre saying about the minimum wage helping business and the economy but it is all relative; supply and demand. If you cannot afford it, you dont buy it (or you borrow); demand drops-> price drops-> sales increase...If everyone can afford it and buys it then demand goes up, price goes up and suddenly everyone needs a pay rise to afford to live.
In order to keep the economy healthy you have to put the money in at a very low level. Companies will only pay what they have to in order to get people to work, it maximises profits. Unfortunately a selfish attitude doesnt always provide the best way.
Quote from: NimrodThe minimum wage does not imply a realistic wage at all, it just levels the playing field at the bottom end of the labour ladder.
There were plenty of people earning less than the minimum wage, often below half. For those it has made a tremendous difference. Security guards often took home as little as a Ã,£1 an hour during the latter stages of Maggies government.
Quote from: NimrodQuote from: SeriousWhich definitely makes you an upper middle class toff in the making.
It also means you will probably never understand economics and will want the corn act brought back.
ooo stereotyping. And I suspect that youre a pre-thatcherite labour voter who wants the upper-level of tax increased to pay for the poor because why should they get more than you ?! You can keep your capped prices, Im all for the free market and making what you can when/where you can; Im surprised you havent figured that out yet.
Not quite, Im more a middle of the road Conservative, which really puts me slightly to the left of Tony Blair :/
Its definitely preferable to have a minimum wage than a load of government benefits to make up for the lack.
Quote from: SeriousPlenty of people worked hard and ended up being either paid a wage that meant they had to accept benefits just for the basics.
As far as the private sector is concerned people do tend to get paid what theyre worth. (though I do agree with the minimum wage as a bare minimum).
Im sure your average road sweeper does work very hard however it is a job that anyone can do and it takes very little skill to do it. You can only be expected to be paid what youre worth to others - if plenty of people are unemployed & weve got fresh supplies of new labourers from eastern Europe then no road sweeper can demand that he gets paid very much as there are plenty of others who are able to take his position.
Conversely if you look at plumbers a few years ago there was a big shortage & they could afford to ask for more money for their labour as it was a skill in demand and there werent countless other plumbers competing with them.
Pay isnt equivalent to the actual physical effort put in but it generally is equivalent to what that physical effort was worth & the result it produced.
As for your book - Im sure youve probably spent as much time writing it as say J K Rowling spent writing her first harry potter novel. Both of you may have put the same amount of mental & physical effort in but the rewards you have got for it so far are vastly different. If yours turns out to be commercially viable for a publisher to publish the you will get a portion of sales and will be compensated according to the number of books actually sold - thus you will roughly get paid for what your work was worth.
I dont think there is anything vastly unfair with the system we have in place as it roughly works and is, in general, *fair* - even although plenty of people at the bottom dont perceive it to be so. At least I think it is a lot better than the alternatives - a system such as communism where everyone is supposedly equal is very unfair - IMO people arent equal.
JK Rowlings agent tried to get it published all round London, the last one finally agreed, although he did tell her not to expect too mucand to keep looking for a day job.
At least 70% of the stuff being touted isnt worth publishing according to most publishers.
So the publishers that turned it down got paid what theyre worth - i.e. they missed out the opportunity & didnt make as much money as they could have if theyd taken her on board. JK Rowling was rewarded in the end for a combination of her efforts in writing the piece & her persistence with the publishers.
If 70% of the stuff being touted isnt commercially viable for the majority of publishers then it is the writers job to not only to produce the book but to also to *sell* the book to the publisher in order for them to see it as commercially viable. (unless of course they employ the services of a literary agent to do the selling part for them).
No one is going to pay money to produce a book that they dont think has a very good chance of selling. J K Rowlings book was clearly risky in the eyes of the publishers though it obviously worked out well for the one who finally took on that risk.
The writer/agent has to sell the book t the publisher but the publisher has to sell it to the public, if they dont then the chances are it wont sell many copies.
Clearly
They get what they are worth too tbh..- if a publisher cant sell books to the public then it will, quite rightly, go out of business.
If an author produces a book that is well liked by his agent & a reputable publisher then he just needs the critics & general public to like it.
If they dont like it & it doesnt sell well then hell get what that book was worth - relatively little. It is an industry in which a few top authors can make a lot of money from relatively little effort (I dont mean they are lazy just that the hours they put in compared to the rewards they receive are rather nice for them) - it is therefore very competitive and only the best are likely to succeed. Being the best in this sense doesnt just mean having one of the best books but perhaps also making sure youve sold yourself to one of the best agents and publishers.
It is all just business in the end and it isnt good enough to simply have a good product - there are plenty of other aspect too.