I understand why raising the minimum wage will not help low wage earners, but what are some things we can do to help fix poverty wages? Working a full time job should allow you to support at least yourself, and two full time workers should easily be able to support a family.
I understand why raising the minimum wage will not help low wage earners, but what are some things we can do to help fix poverty wages? Working a full time job should allow you to support at least yourself, and two full time workers should easily be able to support a family.
There is a faulty assumption here: why wouldn't raising the minimum wage help?
If you look at the fast food industry, automation is going to significantly reduce the workforce in the next 10 years, anyway.
Interviews with business owners have suggested that they would just lay off workers and make less people do more work, actually causing worse employment problems.
Even with automation, the existing workers will need a living wage somewhere else.
Also, I put it in Water Cooler because I didn't want want argument or debate. I just want ideas, brainstorming, useful statistics, positivity, not people arguing about the problem. I am not treating this like a who is right/wrong issue.
I understand why raising the minimum wage will not help low wage earners, but what are some things we can do to help fix poverty wages? Working a full time job should allow you to support at least yourself, and two full time workers should easily be able to support a family.
Minimum wage COULD have worked, if it were kept in line with inflation from the time that it was created. But it wasn't, so now whenever it is increased, it doesn't really influence much.
The key here is the same as is always the key. Education. Very rarely do children learn any kind of financial responsibility, because it's not part if their school curriculum. As a parent, you do what you can. But there is only so much that you can do from that standpoint. Money management etc. needs to be a high school course. But generally it is not. Most of the mistakes people make, they do so because they just don't know any better.
I'm not fully convinced that those business owners would actually make those layoffs. You can only layoff so many people before the work that you provide cannot actually get done. These business owners assume that they would just be able to lean on existing employees to make up missing hours, but this is probably not the case. SOME businesses would shut down, certainly. But if you are only 'succeeding' as a business because you are legally allowed to pay people less money than it takes for them to survive, then, you're not REALLY succeeding as a business. In general, I suspect that most businesses would adapt, they would just have to suffer through lower executive pay, which is the thing that they actually want to avoid.
Yes, but even with money management skills, you can't make a wage that low pay all the necessities, especially in larger cities. With taxes that is only over 1000 a month. After rent, you wouldn't have much left.
That's my entire point. You shouldn't have that much in bills when your pay is that low. When you're only making 8 dollars/hr, you should be sharing your bills somehow, someway, with someone else. If you're single, you should have a roommate(s). And you should buy an inexpensive car, preferably one that doesn't require a monthly payment(which in turn requires full coverage insurance, which is considerably more expensive than liability) And not have a smartphone that has a 90 dollar/month bill. And not have cable. Etc. If you're married, in today's world, both adults have to be working. It is that simple.
That particular part becomes complicated when children become involved, because daycare prices are absurd, and once you have more than one kid, one of the 2 adults will effectively just be working to pay for daycare, which is fairly pointless. But that just goes back to the same thing, in that people shouldn't have kids before they're REALLY capable of taking care of them.
It all boils down to personal responsibility and control, but those are concepts that have to be TAUGHT, and in our current society, no one is teaching them. I do my best to teach my kids about it, but teenagers only listen to their parents to a certain extent. It's not the same as something that they learn in a class at school.
@Angel: Companies don't raise their prices just because minimum wage goes up. That would be too obvious. The backbone to that argument is that inflation increases with minimum wage. But as we've seen over the past 5 or so years, inflation is going to happen no matter what, even in a ****ty down economy. So I think that argument has become kind of moot.
I understand sharing an aprtment, etc, if you work part time and go to school. But someone putting in a full 40 hours a week at any job should be able to afford their own apartment, basic utilities, food and transportation(even if public).
There is a faulty assumption here: why wouldn't raising the minimum wage help?
Because, when minimum wage goes up, companies raise the price of their products.
So to fix poverty, we would have to raise minimum wage and prevent companies from raising their current prices.
But, it's never going to happen because corporations own the world.
There's in indirect correlation, but it's more indicative of the economy as a whole when there's a wage increase across the board - a 10% increase in wages in the economy as a whole (which likely would be a gross overestimate of how much economic "growth" from this would occur) would result in roughly 10% inflation which would result in roughly 10% more cost across the board.
But that hypothetical 10% increase in wages overall which causes the secondary 10%'s would actually require something like a ~80%+ wage increase for minimum wage workers to occur if I remember the numbers right (~12.5% of the workforce or so is minimum wage IIRC) likely far more than 80% since that would only work mathematically if their split of income generation was even with everyone else, which they're far from.
So yes, while prices would raise SOME because of wage increases on the lowest bracket(s) it would be at a much lower rate than their increases, unless everyone else gets their wages bumped up as well.
Otherwise it would end up roughly relative to the amount of their increased wages as a portion of all wages (and other costs) to production in the nation. Of which their portion is tiny in the first place, and deflated in importance because of their already low wage.
I understand sharing an aprtment, etc, if you work part time and go to school. But someone putting in a full 40 hours a week at any job should be able to afford their own apartment, basic utilities, food and transportation(even if public).
To be fair, that "problem" although tight is doable in most areas without much other money to spare beyond basics - however SSI guidelines for the disabled actually target closer to 1/3 of total income as what should be done for such. [Debating doing a refi on the house so I can completely sign off my inheritance to the niece and nephew - which looks quite doable thanks to HUD having loans for the disabled caged to that value as a max (and it's 1/3 of Net income, not Gross - so I get to deduct groceries and some utilities before they figure out the 1/3 at that!)]
Something that could help is to prevent further inflation. Currently those that benefit the most from inflation are the few and privileged that get a first crack at spending newly created money/credit. While prices increase as that money works it's way around to the rest of us.
All raising the minimum wage does is increase the amount of skill required to get entry level work because employers can't pay people more than they are able to produce.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
All raising the minimum wage does is increase the amount of skill required to get entry level work because employers can't pay people more than they are able to produce.
While that's true in aggregate, it's not true on an individual scale.
All raising the minimum wage does is increase the amount of skill required to get entry level work because employers can't pay people more than they are able to produce.
While that's true in aggregate, it's not true on an individual scale.
It is true assuming a profit maximizing firm, beyond benevolence/charity there is no reason an employer would keep someone whose employment results in a net loss.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
The problem is not low wages, its the people living with in their means. If someone makes $1000 a month, they will live different then someone who makes $2500 or more a month. Its all about finding their personal comfort zone they can afford.
As for minimum wage. It should have gone up along with inflation and/or cost of living increases. If the cost of living goes up 3% a year and you get nothing added to your minimum wage, you are slowly falling behind and cant catch up unless you get another way to make money to make up the difference. Add in inflation and it would be very hard for smaller companies to stay in business and pay the wages that the system demands.
Except for rare circumstances, it's very unlikely a business knows the exact amount of revenue generated by its employees.
That's true, they might not have the exact number but they do have an idea of how much revenue needs to be produced by an additional worker in order to hire them. The wage will trend towards that number because competing firms will bid up wages to make a profit on workers up until that point. The result of a minimum wage is that anyone unable to produce more than whatever the bar is set at will be laid off eventually.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
I think you're mistaken to consider employee productivity as the only source of compensation for increased wages. That money can be made up for via a stronger business model, by increased prices, improvements in efficiency, etc. etc.
Can we talk about the fact that places like WalMart are only able to get people to 'freely' agree to work for them on wages so poor that you can't live off them is because our government effectively subsidizes WalMart employees with various benefits such as food stamps?
Considering how much profit that corporation is making, it wouldn't kill them to pay a livable wage. Or, to generalize a bit, if you can't be profitable while paying a living wage, you don't deserve to have the rest of us subsidize your labor costs.
I think you're mistaken to consider employee productivity as the only source of compensation for increased wages. That money can be made up for via a stronger business model, by increased prices, improvements in efficiency, etc. etc.
Again assuming profit maximizing behavior it's already the case that they are being as efficient as they are able to be.
Can we talk about the fact that places like WalMart are only able to get people to 'freely' agree to work for them on wages so poor that you can't live off them is because our government effectively subsidizes WalMart employees with various benefits such as food stamps?
Considering how much profit that corporation is making, it wouldn't kill them to pay a livable wage. Or, to generalize a bit, if you can't be profitable while paying a living wage, you don't deserve to have the rest of us subsidize your labor costs.
I do agree there are many corporations that are subsidized by the government. Walmart in particular is heavily subsidized through the public highway/transportation system that they use for shipping products over large areas that smaller local stores don't use to such an extent yet are forced to pay for it. Corporate welfare is a pretty gigantic problem but there is a revolving door that makes it difficult to resolve.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
Again assuming profit maximizing behavior it's already the case that they are being as efficient as they are able to be.
They are being as efficient as possible given the labor market. Changes to the price of labor change the behaviors that maximize efficiency. It's a mistake to consider that a constant as labor costs change.
Can we talk about the fact that places like WalMart are only able to get people to 'freely' agree to work for them on wages so poor that you can't live off them is because our government effectively subsidizes WalMart employees with various benefits such as food stamps?
Considering how much profit that corporation is making, it wouldn't kill them to pay a livable wage. Or, to generalize a bit, if you can't be profitable while paying a living wage, you don't deserve to have the rest of us subsidize your labor costs.
'Living wage' varies by region.
I know people that have an apartment and a car and work at Wal-mart. I do not know if they get food stamps or such though. Is the car new? nope. But they are living with in their means.
There are 4 things that companies do when faced with floor pay raises.
This is what minimum wage increases are it raises the floor.
1. They eat it out of their profit margin.
2. They cut back on employee and hours
3. raise prices
4. a combination of them all
most companies are not going to take a bite out of their profit margin. this is pretty much a set calculation.
so really they only have a few other choices. cut hours get rid of people and raise prices.
the other issue is that they lower the amount of full time employee's and go with more part timer's.
This is one of the reasons that government shouldn't be setting wages.
Except for rare circumstances, it's very unlikely a business knows the exact amount of revenue generated by its employees.
actually they do. they can track orders and re-orders etc... if i have a shift that is getting 30% re-orders then i am losing money and i need them trained or replaced.
retail stores it is a bit harder to track. same as grocery stores, but they have an idea of the production level of each shift and the people on that shift.
The other problem of raising floor prices is that you devalue higher paying jobs.
so if minimum wage is 8 dollars and now paying 10 dollars. the person that is making 13-15 dollar or even 20 dollars an hour just had their job devalued.
no one is going to give them a 2 dollar raise and they have to deal with the consequences of higher prices.
I do not know if they get food stamps or such though. Is the car new? nope. But they are living with in their means.
that is key. when i first started working i was making 9-10 bucks an hour and i was able to make ends meet. the thing is
you don't need full range cable HBO etc ... you don't need the 30 gig internet.
get a digital box non-cable and a 3 mbit line probably 40 bucks if that a month.
if you have that type of a job you don't need a 300 car payment. used cars here you come.
the cell phone thing is huge. that is 100 bucks a month at least.
There are 4 things that companies do when faced with floor pay raises.
This is what minimum wage increases are it raises the floor.
1. They eat it out of their profit margin.
2. They cut back on employee and hours
3. raise prices
4. a combination of them all
most companies are not going to take a bite out of their profit margin. this is pretty much a set calculation.
so really they only have a few other choices. cut hours get rid of people and raise prices.
the other issue is that they lower the amount of full time employee's and go with more part timer's.
This is one of the reasons that government shouldn't be setting wages.
Sort of. Prices aren't arbitrarily set in the first place - raising them has an effect on profitability. Depending on the industry and so on, raising prices can have the effect of decreasing profit.
Businesses don't hire employees arbitrarily. Depending on the specifics of the business, firing employees can cut profitability, not raise it.
It would be more accurate to say that what businesses do is calculate which options will cost them the least money and do that. Sometimes they will cut hours or employees. Sometimes they will raise prices. Sometimes they will lose it off their profits. Sometimes it'll be a combination of options.
A friend of mine recently posted something about if McDonald's were to double the income of the people that work for them, their menu prices would only change by roughly $0.14, but McDonald's refuses to raise their pay rates, and instead published an "Employee Budget Guide" in which they recommend getting a second job to help pay for some things. And in the end, the weekly spending money that the employee would have for food, clothing, gas, ect. was only $25. That is not enough for people to live on.
Now then, the problem is not minimum wage, because as stated already, the companies would just compensate by raising the prices of their products, thus rending moot the increase of wages.
Instead, we need to take a look at welfare. It should be mandatory that applicants on welfare get tested for any and all illegal substances each month. If you are caught with anything in your system, you lose your benefits. In my area alone, hundreds of people would be forced off of welfare and would have to actually find a job instead of taking the easy rode. And if the applicants cannot provide accurate receipts for the money that is supposed to be used to help them survive, then they should be investigated. You see it a lot on social media sites where people get their welfare checks, and then go out and by new shoes, makeup, jewelry, or other things that they did not need to survive when the old shoes were doing just fine. There are also people that spend the money on drugs, which again is a point for mandatory monthly drug screens for all applicants.
Many people do not understand exactly how much money taxpayers are losing on people who are on welfare not because they require it, but because they are too lazy to walk and find a job. Honestly, it infuriates me to see people spending money that was supposed to help them survive another month while looking for a job on frivolous, wasteful habits and objects. My own cousin is trying to become pregnant so that she can get on welfare. Why? Because she doesn't want to get a job. She had gotten a large settlement from a lawsuit recently, and within 5 days went from $10,000 to just $500. It disgusts me that she wants a child just so she can continue to be a wasted existence.
Raising minimum wage won't help anything, investigating those on welfare will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Running:
Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
Except for rare circumstances, it's very unlikely a business knows the exact amount of revenue generated by its employees.
Perhaps those without HR, Y2 of my MSHRM was almost entirely focused on tracking productivity in a numeric form for the purpose of getting a pretty good idea of the exact figures involved in revenue generation per employee.
And for every time I've ever run the numbers - our low wage workers at my company were producing usually 10x their wage in profit - and mind you grocery is incredibly low margin - and our employees were paid well over minimum wage to start. (In fact most minimum wage proposals are where we were paying them as a minimum starting wage)
The calculations are a bit involved since you have to factor in margins and many fields have varied margins (fortunately for me, outside of a few departments margins were consistent for us - and those departments were only ~20% of our sales) but it absolutely can be done - and I'd wager across most fields productivity per employee is far above their wage on low income workers and far below on high income workers. I can say for sure in my own anecdotal experience, that's almost universally been the case without attributing those below someone to the executive - which largely isn't a correct indicator IMO. [Case in point, a guy on 6 month leave when I crunched his numbers for review still under the normal formulae would've been quite productive - needless to say as a human I treated him as a blank slate]
[Clan Flamingo]
There is a faulty assumption here: why wouldn't raising the minimum wage help?
If you look at the fast food industry, automation is going to significantly reduce the workforce in the next 10 years, anyway.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Even with automation, the existing workers will need a living wage somewhere else.
Also, I put it in Water Cooler because I didn't want want argument or debate. I just want ideas, brainstorming, useful statistics, positivity, not people arguing about the problem. I am not treating this like a who is right/wrong issue.
[Clan Flamingo]
Minimum wage COULD have worked, if it were kept in line with inflation from the time that it was created. But it wasn't, so now whenever it is increased, it doesn't really influence much.
The key here is the same as is always the key. Education. Very rarely do children learn any kind of financial responsibility, because it's not part if their school curriculum. As a parent, you do what you can. But there is only so much that you can do from that standpoint. Money management etc. needs to be a high school course. But generally it is not. Most of the mistakes people make, they do so because they just don't know any better.
I'm not fully convinced that those business owners would actually make those layoffs. You can only layoff so many people before the work that you provide cannot actually get done. These business owners assume that they would just be able to lean on existing employees to make up missing hours, but this is probably not the case. SOME businesses would shut down, certainly. But if you are only 'succeeding' as a business because you are legally allowed to pay people less money than it takes for them to survive, then, you're not REALLY succeeding as a business. In general, I suspect that most businesses would adapt, they would just have to suffer through lower executive pay, which is the thing that they actually want to avoid.
Because, when minimum wage goes up, companies raise the price of their products.
So to fix poverty, we would have to raise minimum wage and prevent companies from raising their current prices.
But, it's never going to happen because corporations own the world.
[Clan Flamingo]
That particular part becomes complicated when children become involved, because daycare prices are absurd, and once you have more than one kid, one of the 2 adults will effectively just be working to pay for daycare, which is fairly pointless. But that just goes back to the same thing, in that people shouldn't have kids before they're REALLY capable of taking care of them.
It all boils down to personal responsibility and control, but those are concepts that have to be TAUGHT, and in our current society, no one is teaching them. I do my best to teach my kids about it, but teenagers only listen to their parents to a certain extent. It's not the same as something that they learn in a class at school.
@Angel: Companies don't raise their prices just because minimum wage goes up. That would be too obvious. The backbone to that argument is that inflation increases with minimum wage. But as we've seen over the past 5 or so years, inflation is going to happen no matter what, even in a ****ty down economy. So I think that argument has become kind of moot.
[Clan Flamingo]
There's in indirect correlation, but it's more indicative of the economy as a whole when there's a wage increase across the board - a 10% increase in wages in the economy as a whole (which likely would be a gross overestimate of how much economic "growth" from this would occur) would result in roughly 10% inflation which would result in roughly 10% more cost across the board.
But that hypothetical 10% increase in wages overall which causes the secondary 10%'s would actually require something like a ~80%+ wage increase for minimum wage workers to occur if I remember the numbers right (~12.5% of the workforce or so is minimum wage IIRC) likely far more than 80% since that would only work mathematically if their split of income generation was even with everyone else, which they're far from.
So yes, while prices would raise SOME because of wage increases on the lowest bracket(s) it would be at a much lower rate than their increases, unless everyone else gets their wages bumped up as well.
Otherwise it would end up roughly relative to the amount of their increased wages as a portion of all wages (and other costs) to production in the nation. Of which their portion is tiny in the first place, and deflated in importance because of their already low wage.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
To be fair, that "problem" although tight is doable in most areas without much other money to spare beyond basics - however SSI guidelines for the disabled actually target closer to 1/3 of total income as what should be done for such. [Debating doing a refi on the house so I can completely sign off my inheritance to the niece and nephew - which looks quite doable thanks to HUD having loans for the disabled caged to that value as a max (and it's 1/3 of Net income, not Gross - so I get to deduct groceries and some utilities before they figure out the 1/3 at that!)]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
All raising the minimum wage does is increase the amount of skill required to get entry level work because employers can't pay people more than they are able to produce.
While that's true in aggregate, it's not true on an individual scale.
It is true assuming a profit maximizing firm, beyond benevolence/charity there is no reason an employer would keep someone whose employment results in a net loss.
As for minimum wage. It should have gone up along with inflation and/or cost of living increases. If the cost of living goes up 3% a year and you get nothing added to your minimum wage, you are slowly falling behind and cant catch up unless you get another way to make money to make up the difference. Add in inflation and it would be very hard for smaller companies to stay in business and pay the wages that the system demands.
That's true, they might not have the exact number but they do have an idea of how much revenue needs to be produced by an additional worker in order to hire them. The wage will trend towards that number because competing firms will bid up wages to make a profit on workers up until that point. The result of a minimum wage is that anyone unable to produce more than whatever the bar is set at will be laid off eventually.
Considering how much profit that corporation is making, it wouldn't kill them to pay a livable wage. Or, to generalize a bit, if you can't be profitable while paying a living wage, you don't deserve to have the rest of us subsidize your labor costs.
Again assuming profit maximizing behavior it's already the case that they are being as efficient as they are able to be.
I do agree there are many corporations that are subsidized by the government. Walmart in particular is heavily subsidized through the public highway/transportation system that they use for shipping products over large areas that smaller local stores don't use to such an extent yet are forced to pay for it. Corporate welfare is a pretty gigantic problem but there is a revolving door that makes it difficult to resolve.
They are being as efficient as possible given the labor market. Changes to the price of labor change the behaviors that maximize efficiency. It's a mistake to consider that a constant as labor costs change.
'Living wage' varies by region.
I know people that have an apartment and a car and work at Wal-mart. I do not know if they get food stamps or such though. Is the car new? nope. But they are living with in their means.
This is what minimum wage increases are it raises the floor.
1. They eat it out of their profit margin.
2. They cut back on employee and hours
3. raise prices
4. a combination of them all
most companies are not going to take a bite out of their profit margin. this is pretty much a set calculation.
so really they only have a few other choices. cut hours get rid of people and raise prices.
the other issue is that they lower the amount of full time employee's and go with more part timer's.
This is one of the reasons that government shouldn't be setting wages.
actually they do. they can track orders and re-orders etc... if i have a shift that is getting 30% re-orders then i am losing money and i need them trained or replaced.
retail stores it is a bit harder to track. same as grocery stores, but they have an idea of the production level of each shift and the people on that shift.
The other problem of raising floor prices is that you devalue higher paying jobs.
so if minimum wage is 8 dollars and now paying 10 dollars. the person that is making 13-15 dollar or even 20 dollars an hour just had their job devalued.
no one is going to give them a 2 dollar raise and they have to deal with the consequences of higher prices.
that is key. when i first started working i was making 9-10 bucks an hour and i was able to make ends meet. the thing is
you don't need full range cable HBO etc ... you don't need the 30 gig internet.
get a digital box non-cable and a 3 mbit line probably 40 bucks if that a month.
if you have that type of a job you don't need a 300 car payment. used cars here you come.
the cell phone thing is huge. that is 100 bucks a month at least.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Sort of. Prices aren't arbitrarily set in the first place - raising them has an effect on profitability. Depending on the industry and so on, raising prices can have the effect of decreasing profit.
Businesses don't hire employees arbitrarily. Depending on the specifics of the business, firing employees can cut profitability, not raise it.
It would be more accurate to say that what businesses do is calculate which options will cost them the least money and do that. Sometimes they will cut hours or employees. Sometimes they will raise prices. Sometimes they will lose it off their profits. Sometimes it'll be a combination of options.
Now then, the problem is not minimum wage, because as stated already, the companies would just compensate by raising the prices of their products, thus rending moot the increase of wages.
Instead, we need to take a look at welfare. It should be mandatory that applicants on welfare get tested for any and all illegal substances each month. If you are caught with anything in your system, you lose your benefits. In my area alone, hundreds of people would be forced off of welfare and would have to actually find a job instead of taking the easy rode. And if the applicants cannot provide accurate receipts for the money that is supposed to be used to help them survive, then they should be investigated. You see it a lot on social media sites where people get their welfare checks, and then go out and by new shoes, makeup, jewelry, or other things that they did not need to survive when the old shoes were doing just fine. There are also people that spend the money on drugs, which again is a point for mandatory monthly drug screens for all applicants.
Many people do not understand exactly how much money taxpayers are losing on people who are on welfare not because they require it, but because they are too lazy to walk and find a job. Honestly, it infuriates me to see people spending money that was supposed to help them survive another month while looking for a job on frivolous, wasteful habits and objects. My own cousin is trying to become pregnant so that she can get on welfare. Why? Because she doesn't want to get a job. She had gotten a large settlement from a lawsuit recently, and within 5 days went from $10,000 to just $500. It disgusts me that she wants a child just so she can continue to be a wasted existence.
Raising minimum wage won't help anything, investigating those on welfare will.
Currently Running:
Nothing, I have just gotten back after a long hiatus, and am just now starting to rebuild my collection.
Perhaps those without HR, Y2 of my MSHRM was almost entirely focused on tracking productivity in a numeric form for the purpose of getting a pretty good idea of the exact figures involved in revenue generation per employee.
And for every time I've ever run the numbers - our low wage workers at my company were producing usually 10x their wage in profit - and mind you grocery is incredibly low margin - and our employees were paid well over minimum wage to start. (In fact most minimum wage proposals are where we were paying them as a minimum starting wage)
The calculations are a bit involved since you have to factor in margins and many fields have varied margins (fortunately for me, outside of a few departments margins were consistent for us - and those departments were only ~20% of our sales) but it absolutely can be done - and I'd wager across most fields productivity per employee is far above their wage on low income workers and far below on high income workers. I can say for sure in my own anecdotal experience, that's almost universally been the case without attributing those below someone to the executive - which largely isn't a correct indicator IMO. [Case in point, a guy on 6 month leave when I crunched his numbers for review still under the normal formulae would've been quite productive - needless to say as a human I treated him as a blank slate]
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.