Well, that raises a few interesting questions. Of all these places to go for cost of living statistics, which one is to be the official one? And who's in charge of making the selection? And once one is selected, who monitors that source to see that it isn't "influenced" by special interest groups? And why should a job pay all living expenses for a single person, and what criteria do we use for this? Living alone, or with roommates? One bedroom apartment, or two? In what part of town? What about teenagers living at home? Do they need to make the same wage? What about people who for whatever reason choose to only work part-time? Do they get the same rate? And what if I own a small business and need some help, but can't afford and don't need a full time employee? Will the government step in and make sure I cover that person's entire living expenses? And whoa, did you say single person? How many single people are there really? If I get married or have kids, do I automatically get more money? If I then get divorced and my wife gets the kids, do I lose money? What if I see them on weekends and 2 weeks during the summer, how about a pro-rated increase?
Who will be in charge of monitoring all these questions to ensure "fairness"? and at what expense? And the bigger question - why? If two people agree on a rate of exchange for services rendered, what business is that of yours, mine, or the government's?
But how did we get here anyway? We're talking about the UAW, with it's most assuredly greedy practices like if the company needs to shut down a factory because say they experience a 47% drop in sales, that the displaced workers will be paid 90% of their normal wage. While I'm sure they appreciate your sympathy, all of them make more money than they would doing the same work elsewhere. And at this point, really ought to feel rather fortunate to still have a job.
I think one thing that would be an amazing change but will never happen is to have a percentage difference cap between the top paid employee and the lowest paid employee.
I think as soon as there's a cap on minimum and maximum contribution to the success of the organization you might see this. I hear France is working on it.
Minimum wage doesn't have to be that complicated, all it has to do is cover normal living expenses for one person. If you're married the other person should be expected to work for minimum wage at least as well. If there are kids involved, they'd probably be on welfare anyway with two parents making minimum wage- nothing would change. To answer your question about who decides all of this: Our elected officials and whoever they appoint. That's how we do things in America. They might make a lot of crappy decisions, but I don't get how this isn't the obvious answer.
Like I said earlier, I have seen the good and bad of unions first hand. But, I think without them we'd see an even larger gap because the government doesn't ever seem to be looking out for the lower/middle class. Without unions we'd have a large number of people going from lower/middle to lower.
jfg wrote:If there are kids involved, they'd probably be on welfare anyway with two parents making minimum wage
2 parents earning minimum wage really shouldn't be bringing a financial burden on themselves they cannot afford*. You expect a lot out of business owners, so why not expect the same out of individuals?
* - 2 people working minimum wage jobs can provide for themselves and a child, they just won't have the luxuries some other people have.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
jfg wrote:...To answer your question about who decides all of this: Our elected officials and whoever they appoint. That's how we do things in America. They might make a lot of crappy decisions, but I don't get how this isn't the obvious answer.
And what I think is obvious is: that's a whole lot of oversight, committees, regulations and bureaucracy, all because you can't answer this question:
And the bigger question - why? If two people agree on a rate of exchange for services rendered, what business is that of yours, mine, or the government's?
And we haven't even mentioned how many people your plan would put out of work. That's why many people oppose the idea of a minimum wage. Every time they raise it, jobs are lost. And it always seems that if unions are given the choice of having a small decrease for everyone, say 10%, they'll choose every time to instead have 10% of their members thrown under the bus.
jfg wrote: To answer your question about who decides all of this: Our elected officials and whoever they appoint.
There is zero wevidence that these people have any special knowledge or qualification to exucte the given task. It is impossible to do so. There's too much information and too much variability for it to be possible.