NJ referendum on raising minimum wage. Opinions?

[Gravekeeper]

A line that could just as easily be written as...

Fun fact: Workers who are more productive are paid more.

Are you mistaking the cause for the effect? Or could it be a mixture of both?

Except workers who are more productive are not paid more in the sectors we're talking about. These are sectors were people can be with the company for 10 years and not even get a raise. Also, all evidence points to it being exactly the way around that Andara stated.

Worker engagement in the US is hilariously low. Only 35% of workers report being positively engaged with their jobs. Why are they not positively engaged? Because their employer treats them like cattle.

QFT. If you work for a full week and don't take home enough to pay for basic living expenses, then there is a problem. That said, basic living expenses do not include cable, internet, mobile phones, booze and cigarettes.

As noted, what passes for basic living expenses in the US does not even include shelter. Unlike the rest of the industrialized world. So this is pointless to bring up.

However, minimum wage laws are a sledgehammer approach to a one-hundred-tiny-nails problem. Jobs in different industries have different needs; hell, different companies in the same industry have jobs with different needs. Trying to shoehorn a one-size-fits-all solution will result in entirely foreseeable problems for some.

I don't know what you're even talking about here. You're completely missing the point of minimum wage and at the same time assuming minimum wage is the global norm? Minimum wage is chiefly the concern of the service and retail sectors.

It's the wrong approach. Increasing employment and job market participation is the solution. If the unemployment rate was lower, companies would need to offer more to attract better employees. With more people working, more money circulates, improving living standards and reducing the strain on welfare.

Do I seriously need to repeat everything I've already said in this threat? You're completely missing the point of minimum wage and totally ignoring all of the economic evidence and historical evidence I have already provided.

I don't even know how you typed that with a straight face given that people with college degrees are fighting over cashier jobs at McDonalds right now in the US economy. How do you propose to create more jobs in a stagnant economy with one of the worst wealth gaps in the world without increasing the purchasing power of those at the bottom end?

How do you rationalize away the fact that the US has one of the lowest minimum wages amongst first world countries yet one of the highest GDP's and that when adjusted for inflation the same job in 2013 makes you $3.30/hour less than it did in 1968?

If you got rid of the imbecilic level of paperwork, red tape, regulation and bureaucracy it takes for small businesses to hire, that would effectively make the level of 'productivity' a worker needs to provide lower. It would make a great many government workers redundant however, so that's unlikely to ever happen.

Right. According the National Small Business Association the #1 reason small businesses are not hiring is economic uncertainty and the #2 reason is decline in consumer spending.

Guess what raising minimum wage would improve?

So can we stop pulling anecdotes about what we THINK is the problem out of our ass now? -.-

[Hyena Dandy]

QFT. If you work for a full week and don't take home enough to pay for basic living expenses, then there is a problem. That said, basic living expenses do not include cable, internet, mobile phones, booze and cigarettes.

Why should basic living expenses not include internet and mobile phones? Those are necessary in the modern world. A lot of jobs won't accept you if you don't have at least a phone number, and often an e-mail address. Pre-paid mobiles are cheaper than a landline. The year is not 1990 and mobile phones are not a luxury of the super-rich. Same with the internet, honestly. Internet connections are vital for things like searching for jobs, for improving your situation. Talking about mobile phones as an excess is as out of touch as when people on Fox News say the same about refrigerators.

Also, I have a problem with the fact that people's idea of the poor is that they should be constantly working and spend no money on themselves. Psychological needs are needs too. The poor should be able to have things that help them relax and destress, too. And the internet is one of the best things possible for that.

I honestly feel like the internet and telephones should be state-provided.

As for saying that better paid people work better is putting the effect before cause... That's ridiculous. Studies have shown that people who are not under stress perform better than people who are. Money is the biggest stressor in a lot of people's lives. Change that, you change the amount of stress they feel. Change the stress they feel, they do their job better.

[s_stabeler]

Also, I have a problem with the fact that people's idea of the poor is that they should be constantly working and spend no money on themselves. Psychological needs are needs too. The poor should be able to have things that help them relax and destress, too. And the internet is one of the best things possible for that.

you aren't wrong- wages should allow some room for luxuries ( here I define luxuries as anything you can live without.) but what people are saying is that it's shameful that wages can be lower than what is required to survive on.

[smileyeagle1021]

Um, draco664, it has, in fact been proven before that employees treated properly are more productive. It's not cause and effect being reversed.

I'm not going to disagree with the first part, but will contest the second about cause and effect. The only examples we really have for that is comparing companies like Costco to Sams Club or In N Out to McDonalds. Yes, Costco and In N Out pay a lot more than Sams Club or McDonalds, and yes, they have much more productive workers, but, having known people who do work at Costco and In N Out, it is incredibly difficult to get a job at those places, they only hire the people who already are more productive. There is something to be said about an employee who isn't stressed over how they are paying rent is going to be more focused and more productive, but I question the studies that say "look Costco pays more and their workers are more productive" as proof that better pay automatically leads to better productivity.

[s_stabeler]

it's slightly simplified, but there are several reasons why. 1) you attract better workers. If you pay more, you will attract workers that actually give a damn. This is a somewhat delayed benefit. This is what you identify as the reason for CostCo's increased productivity, if I read your post correct. 2) Workers are less stressed and distracted. A worker trying to decide between putting food on the table or paying rent is not going to be able to put their full concentration into the job they are paid to do 3) The workers you have actually give a damn. If you pay your workers enough to actually live on, then amazingly, they find less to complain about, and will take more crap from customers etc.

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

[Lachrymose]

Damned right it is my problem. If minimu wage is raised to 15 as many of these groups want, I will become a minimu wage employee and my investment in college will have been worthless, and yes, I will take offense at that.

I never finished college and, judging by this post, make nearly twice as much as you do.

Does that make you angry?

[Andara Bledin]

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

This.

Aside from people being happier when they make more money, it's been shown that people who worry over money are actually less capable of making good decisions. So it's actually a physiological fact that people who make enough to survive perform better than those who don't.

How's that for cause and effect?

[Hyena Dandy]

in short, you WILL get productivity improvements from a rise in pay, albeit the greatest improvement is when the pay is increased to above the poverty line, defined as enough to afford food, shelter and utility bills.

Fixed so that you're talking about the poverty line in the US

[s_stabeler]

actually, it needs those other things to get the improvement. Basically, some form of financial security is necessary for an employee to be truly productive. By that, I mean that the minimum wage should be sufficient to support one person. ( that is, it should cover at a minimum, a one-bedroom flat, the associated utility bills, food and transport costs to work. At a minimum. and I do define an internet connection as a utility. As do I a cheap mobile phone contract. ( that more or less allows someone to live a basic life on minimum wage, but if you want a truly good life, you need to put in the effort to find a better job.)

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not going to disagree with the first part, but will contest the second about cause and effect. The only examples we really have for that is comparing companies like Costco to Sams Club or In N Out to McDonalds. Yes, Costco and In N Out pay a lot more than Sams Club or McDonalds, and yes, they have much more productive workers, but, having known people who do work at Costco and In N Out, it is incredibly difficult to get a job at those places, they only hire the people who already are more productive.

You are aware that your country has the most famous incident of what happens when you raise employee wages in all of history, right? If not then you might want to go look up a young upstart by the name of Henry Ford.

Also, I'm sure every employer on the planet would love to discover your magical secret for determining a person's true productivity before they even start the job.

So can we stop imagining what we think the problem is or how it works when even a cursory Google search would tell you otherwise?

I never finished college and, judging by this post, make nearly twice as much as you do.

Come to think of it, I only have a high school diploma and I make more as well. >.> But my company doesn't treat us like cattle.

[Lachrymose]

Let me state for the record that I respect anyone who continues their education. I think investing in education is never a waste of time and/or money (although some may disagree based on whatever your major was..I may too, but can't think of any majors that are a true waste of time or money at the moment).

However, I know enough people who've obtained degrees that they will never use and get jobs well below their education level that it can be self-defeating to think degree=wealth.

Does that mean I think they wasted their time? Nope.

And I've worked just as hard, if not harder (since I had to prove through experience that I can do what I can do), to get where I am today without finishing school.

I will concede that I could probably be making more than I am in the field I'm in (IT/programming) if I actually did obtain a degree. But of course that's a big if as well... Not to mention it's not all about the money anyway, but the "total workplace experience", as Gravekeeper touched on.

[Kheldarson]

A nice summary on Henry Ford for anyone interested:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...her_wages.html

[wolfie]

Worker engagement in the US is hilariously low. Only 35% of workers report being positively engaged with their jobs. Why are they not positively engaged? Because their employer treats them like cattle.

Employers in the U.S. do NOT treat workers like cattle. After all, there are little things like the SPCA and laws governing the treatment of animals that they'd have to worry about in dealing with cattle, but which are completely silent regarding the treatment of workers.

[HYHYBT]

That's basically what Obama is proposing. Raise it to $9 initially to get people above the poverty line then tie it to the rate of inflation so that it goes up annually to keep up.

It's not the same. What I described was a gradual increase in both minimum wages (eventually equalizing them in the process) and tying them to inflation once they reach where they would be had they been that way all along. That is very different than a one-time increase to one of them which then ties it to inflation at much lower value.

However, having now tried the math, the steps would have to be an amount plus the inflation rate to work reliably in a reasonable timeframe. So try this: current rates tied to inflation, plus a dollar per year until they equal $15 in 2013 dollars. On such a system, at 2% inflation the regular minimum would hit that in 2022 and the separate tipped minimum would cease to exist in 2029. At 5%, those years would be 2024 and 2035.

The problem is the poverty line in the US is calculated ridiculously. It's based only on the price of staple foods, and doesn't take into account housing, electricity, etc.

Including those would make it more obvious that it also needs to vary by location.

[KabeRinnaul]

A nice summary on Henry Ford for anyone interested:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...her_wages.html

But we do still follow Fordism!

A "system designed to spew out standardized, low-cost goods and afford its workers decent enough wages to buy them."

And Wal-Mart pays its employees just enough that they can afford to shop at Wal-Mart.