Anonymous wrote:Nannies in my neighborhood make $25/hour (when you factor in the employers paying their taxes, etc)....that's more than the starting salary for most teachers. Most teachers have advanced degrees (beyond college), whereas most nannies do not (many do not even speak English). I say free market, supply/demand, blah blah blah, so it's fine with me since the employers who hire nannies aren't being compelled by law to do so.

If you are paying the equivalent of $50K annually for a nanny, you are grossly overpaying for the services of a nanny. But that is no surprise because the compensation paid by DCUM members for various services is ridiculous. I pay my nanny $15 an hour and she takes care of two children and I live in one of the affluent areas in Northern Virginia. She is wonderful and she is very happy with what she is paid and has been with us for over 6 years. She is also legally in the country.

Nannies in my neighborhood make $25/hour (when you factor in the employers paying their taxes, etc)....that's more than the starting salary for most teachers. Most teachers have advanced degrees (beyond college), whereas most nannies do not (many do not even speak English). I say free market, supply/demand, blah blah blah, so it's fine with me since the employers who hire nannies aren't being compelled by law to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It used to be a living wage. How come it used to be a living wage, and economic disaster did not ensue, but now if we had a living wage, economic disaster would ensue?

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. What we used to consider a basic standard of living is much lower than what we now consider a basic standard of living.

I'm pretty sure that "having enough to eat" is a constant through the ages.

Anonymous wrote:

There is a minimum wage, so what is your point? Did I say it should be repealed? No I did not.

If I need to hire someone for $2 an hour...guess what, I can. It is called the global workforce. That is what you wanted right? To be a "global citizen".

Maybe you can. I don't know what your business is. However, most companies that employ minimum-wage workers can't. You can't outsource home health care aides, fast food workers, house cleaners, dishwashers, landscapers, sales clerks, tomato pickers, or daycare workers. For example.

Anonymous wrote:The minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It used to be a living wage. How come it used to be a living wage, and economic disaster did not ensue, but now if we had a living wage, economic disaster would ensue?

I'm not sure this is a fair statement. What we used to consider a basic standard of living is much lower than what we now consider a basic standard of living.

Anonymous wrote:We have already seen a massive move in both manufacturing and some service jobs away from the US to less expensive countries. Keep this up and you will see more of the same.

Shouldn't we see this even without living wage pressures? If a business owner spends $N on every person hired in the US, but only a fraction of N on every person hired SomewhereElse, what incentive is there for a business owner to employee people here? Do we know where that tipping point is?

Anonymous wrote:People who know nothing about economics, an the supply and demand of labor prattling on about raising the minimum wage and forcing an arbitrary standard of "living wage". It'll just make goods and services too expensive for the poor to afford. Companies will hire less people and we'll have more unemployment. Only q fool would believe that companies won't lay off people, use more tech and other one time costs to cut down on costs. But then again most of you work for the government and live off the teet of the American tax paying public.

And yet people who do know a great deal about economics argue these issues. I'm certain they have more information than I do, but even they don't seem to have decisive information. Sometimes we're all just playing with thought experiments.

So, apparently history tells us that when minimum wages have increased, we have seen an overall improvement not 0 sum game. Some people lost jobs, but not the number one would have expected if every dollar had to be accounted for that way. Some other wages increased, but not in the same exact dollar amount. If that's the case, is there a tipping point? Is it useful to push wages up until *just* before everything cascades down? Or is it not worth taking the risk?

Anonymous wrote:Minimum wage to me means that working people earn enough to not be homeless or to not live on welfare. And yes, enough for a family to get by. A baby consumes surprisingly little.
The expense is astronomical right now because of the cost of day care, so for those there are day care vouchers and wic

A working person should earn more than someone living off welfare. And a working person should have their own place to live, a means of transportation to work, able to eat well and access to health care

Would you calculate the minimum wage required based on one income or two?

Daycare is really expensive. I wish I had some ideas for how to make it more affordable because childcare is an even more complicated issue than housing (in my opinion).

I do think there should be extrinsic rewards for working, like you suggest. One answer is to make the social safety net truly the bare minimum, but I don't think that's something our society would accept. So there needs to be some way to allow for people to move off dependency on the social safety net bit-by-bit as they increase their self sufficiency.

I'm not sure, to be honest, a living wage provides that. Small businesses tend to work on a shoe string budget, and people costs tend to be one of their highest costs. So you have arguments for suppressing the living wage to the bare minimum necessary, which would likely to be very similar to what one achieves just using welfare and other social programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

So would you argue there should be no minimum wage at all? If you can find someone to answer phones for $1/hr, that person should be allowed to make that choice, and you should be allowed to employ them for that wage?

There is a minimum wage, so what is your point? Did I say it should be repealed? No I did not.

If I need to hire someone for $2 an hour...guess what, I can. It is called the global workforce. That is what you wanted right? To be a "global citizen".

Why do you think that you are entitled to tell other people how to run their businesses? What equity have you put in? What have you sacrificed? (Most) Businesses are private organizations, not government subsidiaries. Safety regulations are fine. Min wage is necessary.

But as for the rest, if you have so many great ideas on what companies should do, then prove it. Start your own company and do it. It is not your place to tell a private business owner how to allocate funds, especially when you know nothing as far as what goes on behind the scenes.

Anonymous wrote:

If a smart business person could *not* do that, wouldn't we be socially saying we support the person out to grab all the wealth personally, rather than run a more ethical company? If society as a whole is not willing to support more ethical business practices, is it fair to require them of individuals?

I'm confused. Wouldn't a minimum wage that is a living wage be society as a whole being willing to support more ethical business practices?

Anonymous wrote:I find this entire line of reasoning to be extraordinary. If one raises the minimum wage to a level that is a living wage for those with minimal education and skills, one would presumably need to increase the salaries of those who have some educational attainment or skills.

Would we? I've read articles that indicated that when minimum wages are raised, there's not much of an increase in other wages (if any). And let's say there is some upward pressure exerted on other wages, would it be 1-to-1? Would people now making 100K/yr insist upon 120K/yr, for example?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

And the result is that you've extracted what you want out and left what? Poor workers overseas, poor neighbors in low wage jobs, etc. If everyone does this, America will be a third world country where vast legions of poor and a few rich people own everything, if not already.

Would it do that, or would a smart business person enter the market, pay a better wage to his or her employees, and end up taking over the market?

If a smart business person could *not* do that, wouldn't we be socially saying we support the person out to grab all the wealth personally, rather than run a more ethical company? If society as a whole is not willing to support more ethical business practices, is it fair to require them of individuals?

Anonymous wrote:I think we should guarantee a basic income for everyone with a job.

About 25% of median income. This will ensure that people will be able to afford a very small living space, food, clothing and some extras if you save (like transportation - cheap used car, bike, moped, etc.).

Would you offer that basic income in addition to a social safety net, or instead of a social safety net?

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

So would you argue there should be no minimum wage at all? If you can find someone to answer phones for $1/hr, that person should be allowed to make that choice, and you should be allowed to employ them for that wage?

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

You're going to outsource answering the phone, responding to e-mails, and stuffing envelopes to Asia? How about the people who clean your office -- will you outsource those jobs to Asia too? And the people who mow and blow your lawn -- also outsourced to Asia?

This doesn't even get into the question of how many more people would buy [whatever-ever-it-is you sell] if they had more money. Henry Ford figured this out 100 years ago, and he actually did start his own company.