Think Two Broke Girls instead of outfits that can raise capital on a whim. Hostess doesn't make custom cupcakes.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Think Two Broke Girls instead of outfits that can raise capital on a whim. Hostess doesn't make custom cupcakes.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Depends on the type of business, especially those specializing in unique and/or individualized services, and the type of machine you mean. A mom 'n pop cupcake company can make capital investments in industrial grade mixers and ovens, computers for their recipes or bookkeeping, but they'll still need to hire a certain number of actual people to do the "hand" work. That's a crucial part of their specialty brand niche, and human capital is an important investment, too.
Panera bread uses that concept by baking on-site, instead of shipping pre-baked items from a larger production or distribution center. Plenty of food franchises use a combination of mass production plus on-site hand-assembly for the freshness component (like Subway) and take it one step further with hand-delivery (like Pizza Hut).
Those workers actually help make the business by distinguishing the product from anything you can buy in the frozen food section of the grocery store. The grocery stores with internal bakeries, on-site cooking, delis and butchers....know the importance and value of paying those workers a decent wage, a living wage.
Why don't you?
We actually support offering jobs that pay people a decent wage, a living wages. You seem to want to drive costs so high companies have no choice but to either cut hours (thus wages), cut jobs, go out of business or replace people with machines?Those workers actually help make the business by distinguishing the product from anything you can buy in the frozen food section of the grocery store. The grocery stores with internal bakeries, on-site cooking, delis and butchers....know the importance and value of paying those workers a decent wage, a living wage.
Why don't you?
So why do you oppose offering people decent wages for decent jobs?
Depends on the type of business, especially those specializing in unique and/or individualized services, and the type of machine you mean. A mom 'n pop cupcake company can make capital investments in industrial grade mixers and ovens, computers for their recipes or bookkeeping, but they'll still need to hire a certain number of actual people to do the "hand" work. That's a crucial part of their specialty brand niche, and human capital is an important investment, too.
Panera bread uses that concept by baking on-site, instead of shipping pre-baked items from a larger production or distribution center. Plenty of food franchises use a combination of mass production plus on-site hand-assembly for the freshness component (like Subway) and take it one step further with hand-delivery (like Pizza Hut).
Those workers actually help make the business by distinguishing the product from anything you can buy in the frozen food section of the grocery store. The grocery stores with internal bakeries, on-site cooking, delis and butchers....know the importance and value of paying those workers a decent wage, a living wage.
Why don't you?+1
Is UK's federal minimum wage -- that decent wage for decent jobs -- the equivalent of $7.25/hour USD?
I'm pretty sure Uk pays people more than that to stay out of the labor force.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Nope, you can't use Rand's reply as a replacement for your own.
He's a Brit, and their (relative) federal min. wage is higher than ours. The UK also has a NHS and 'universal healthcare', compared to our min. wage workers who often have NO healthcare benefits....unless they apply for 'welfare'. Also, our 'welfare' standards are harder to meet (depending on the state).
In the US, a family of four qualifies for gov't assistance/subsidies when they earn less than $30,000/year. A non-married individual qualifies when they earn less than $15,000/year. The average income for seniors is around $12,000/year including SS payments.
Nearly 40% of today's jobs are service positions, and most of those pay minimum wage. Among those workers, nearly 25% are considered to be the working-poor. With no benefits like health insurance, sick days, or family leave. Let alone retirement plans, or even "employee profit sharing".
Do the math.
Yeah, but Dread has a real job. Dealing with the serf is his elected official's obligation.Nope, you can't use Rand's reply as a replacement for your own.
He's a Brit, and their (relative) federal min. wage is higher than ours. The UK also has a NHS and 'universal healthcare', compared to our min. wage workers who often have NO healthcare benefits....unless they apply for 'welfare'. Also, our 'welfare' standards are harder to meet (depending on the state).
In the US, a family of four qualifies for gov't assistance/subsidies when they earn less than $30,000/year. A non-married individual qualifies when they earn less than $15,000/year. The average income for seniors is around $12,000/year including SS payments.
Nearly 40% of today's jobs are service positions, and most of those pay minimum wage. Among those workers, nearly 25% are considered to be the working-poor. With no benefits like health insurance, sick days, or family leave. Let alone retirement plans, or even "employee profit sharing".
Do the math.No way we can expect him to act on his own.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
It's strange to see Rand and Dread act like they agree on principle....when our countries have different political systems, different definitions for what it means to be a "conservative", and the role of government.
Maybe it's apropos, at Thatcher's death, that differences between British and American "conservatism" is re-visited.
Adjusting for cost of living, the UK's minimum wage is the equivalent of $7.42.
If you prefer to adjust for purchasing power, their minimum wage is the equivalent of $6.06
No, I didn't know that "most" jobs pay the federal minimum wage. Probably because that isn't true.Only about 5% of the US labor force is paid at/below minimum wage.Nope, you can't use Rand's reply as a replacement for your own.
He's a Brit, and their (relative) federal min. wage is higher than ours. The UK also has a NHS and 'universal healthcare', compared to our min. wage workers who often have NO healthcare benefits....unless they apply for 'welfare'. Also, our 'welfare' standards are harder to meet (depending on the state).
In the US, a family of four qualifies for gov't assistance/subsidies when they earn less than $30,000/year. A non-married individual qualifies when they earn less than $15,000/year. The average income for seniors is around $12,000/year including SS payments.
Nearly 40% of today's jobs are service positions, and most of those pay minimum wage. Among those workers, nearly 25% are considered to be the working-poor. With no benefits like health insurance, sick days, or family leave. Let alone retirement plans, or even "employee profit sharing".
Do the math.
I know you like to delight in the world as Dickensian and things are certainly bad (with special thanks to Obama and Pelosi), but the numbers aren't as dire as you make them out to be.
Last edited by Dreadnaught; 04-10-2013 at 03:15 AM.
The amusing thing is that we had this same discussion with GGT less than a month ago. And scarcely a month later, she's back to lying about the number of people earning the minimum wage.
Hope is the denial of reality
Are US petrol prices over $8 per gallon? Are US minimum wage earners paying a tax at 32% of their hourly wage? Are US companies paying 13.8% extra of the minimum wage earners hourly wage as payroll tax?
Lets not pretend that the UK is a land of milk and honey were your take home pay is at minimum wage a gold-plated fortune.
At direct exchange rates the UK's take home national minimum wage for over 21's is $6.45 (less for younger). Purchasing power it's even less. It'd take over 75 minutes working to pay for a gallon of petrol, how long for a US worker to get a gallon of gas?
EDIT: Wraith did you take our 32% tax rate (let alone employers taxes on top of that!) into account? I'm firmly of the opinion that the minimum should be untaxed (as I believe it is I'm the US) but its not.
Last edited by RandBlade; 04-10-2013 at 11:51 AM.
Nope. You guys tax minimum wage earners? I didn't realize that - we don't do that in the US unless you're somehow getting a bunch of money from somewhere else. You can multiply the numbers I gave above by 0.68 then, I suppose. I think corporations do still pay the payroll taxes, though.
That's odd, I thought the UK had a so-called "personal allowance" (tax-free income) of £8,105 annually (soon £9440). Assuming £6.19*52w*40h=£12,875.2/year for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the UK over the age of 21, you're left with £4770.2 in taxable income annually. That amount should be taxed at ca. 20% = £954.04 which is about 7.41% of their total annual income in income tax. I'm not saying that's good, but from where I'm standing it looks like you're severely exaggerating the actual income tax burden on minimum-wage workers in the UK. Bear in mind that a significant portion of these workers may not even be working full-time (for better or worse), in which case they'd be paying even less of their income in taxes, perhaps none at all. I have no idea what tax credits and rebates may be available to them (and no doubt they don't either).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The US has a personal allowance, too...
Hope is the denial of reality
You're doing it wrong, trust me. Multiple mistakes. Firstly minimum wage jobs are almost the most commonly hourly paid and flexible hours so you can't just aggregate it you need to look at the marginal tax rate. 8105/52/6.19 = ~25 hours. Every extra hour after that is fully taxed. Until recently it was 16 hours so its not as bad as it used to be.That's odd, I thought the UK had a so-called "personal allowance" (tax-free income) of £8,105 annually (soon £9440). Assuming £6.19*52w*40h=£12,875.2/year for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the UK over the age of 21, you're left with £4770.2 in taxable income annually. That amount should be taxed at ca. 20% = £954.04 which is about 7.41% of their total annual income in income tax. I'm not saying that's good, but from where I'm standing it looks like you're severely exaggerating the actual income tax burden on minimum-wage workers in the UK. Bear in mind that a significant portion of these workers may not even be working full-time (for better or worse), in which case they'd be paying even less of their income in taxes, perhaps none at all. I have no idea what tax credits and rebates may be available to them (and no doubt they don't either
Secondly tax is 32% not 20%. That is made of 20% Income Tax + 12% National Insurance. NI is Income Tax by another name nowadays, so that's 32%. The marginal tax rate of an extra hours work at 25 hours is 32%.
Finally what isn't being taken into account at all either is the loss of welfare. I didn't mention this as its another complication and simpler to look at just marginal rates but if you want detail: Welfare is available if not working and taken away as you earn more, since we (as opposed to the US) have a system whereby you can gain those benefits pretty much automatically without any contributions or stringent requirements then that withdrawal of benefits is just as much a tax on working at your marginal rates as other taxes are. At the low rates of hours the marginal tax rate currently is 100% - every pound you earn is a pound less in unemployment benefits you get until the state is no longer paying you any. Its not just unemployment benefits but "tax credits" (a very duplicitous name that have nothing to do with the tax you paid) and other forms of welfare whereby you get less the more you earn.
So yes the marginal tax rate of 32% only applies after 25 hours, but the marginal tax rate at low hours is 100%. Either way you slice it you're taxed for working.
Am I understanding this correctly? Does the UK really reduce low income benefits at a 1:1 ratio with income earned? So it's possible for someone to take a new job, and earn the same amount of money as if they had no job at all? That's not how incentives are supposed to work...
Exactly!
Unemployment benefits are set such that you keep the first £5 a week you earn and after that lose benefits pound-for-pound; A lot of other benefits are means-tested too. In fact its quite possible to end up on over 100% effective tax rates based on some combinations of means-tested benefits. The current government is attempting to simplify the system by merging and reforming 6 major income-related benefits (including unemployment) to guarantee people are better off working than not, but these reforms are very unpopular with the left.
I was referring to BLS, OMB and jobs reports from recent weeks. Sorry, I left out the word "new", as in most new jobs are in the low-paying service sectors (retail, food service, unskilled healthcare, property maintenance, etc.) They're predominantly temporary, seasonal, sub-contract work, or self-employed 'new' businesses....with no benefits of any kind.
FFS. I'm considering the New Economy, the realities of structural changes in labor markets, the quality and pay of jobs being created, costs of living --- including healthcare insurance --- in a comprehensive manner. What you're doing (besides making personal digs at me) is repeating political talking points. You can't even decide if things are good or bad, unless you can blame democrats *or Obama* for any bad, AND discredit them for any good.I know you like to delight in the world as Dickensian and things are certainly bad (with special thanks to Obama and Pelosi), but the numbers aren't as dire as you make them out to be.
To others: Consumer purchasing prices don't index very well (between UK and US) because our structures are so different. ie, working minimum wage can't possibly cover basic US medical care, but no Brit is forced to declare medical bankruptcy. Student loan debt in the US now exceeds credit card debt (in the trillions), and our social mobility and income disparities are worse than other industrialized nations.
Please provide an evidential link that "most" new jobs are at minimum wage. No service sector does not equal minimum wage.
UK tuition fees at Uni are now ~$14k per annum.
http://money.usnews.com/money/career...ow-paying-jobs
The article cites National Employment Law Project (nelp.org), Economic Policy Institute, (epi.org) and Moody's Analytics.
Since that was written (end of 2011), BLS and Federal Reserve data, plus other economic data from private and gov't agencies, confirm the 'trend'. (It was headline news when those mid-wage job averages dipped below $48,000/year for the first time in years, too.)The lopsided growth of low-paying jobs is expected to continue. Economic forecasting firm Moody's Analytics projects that between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2015, the economy will create 12.1 million jobs, but they will be disproportionately low-paying ones. Of those jobs, 42 percent are expected to be low-wage jobs, 39 percent are expected to be mid-wage jobs, and only 19 percent are expected to be high-wage jobs. (Moody's classifies jobs by the average salary of each group: $25,000 for low-wage jobs, $50,000 for mid-wage jobs, and $94,000 for high-wage jobs.)
Surely you've read about our under-emeployment problem, or do I have to link data for that, too?
Is that supposed to make US students feel better about their $6,000 per semester in-state tuition?
How many semesters per annum? If its just 2 then it seems you're no longer way more expensive.
All of those averages are above the minimum wage. And yes, we're in a recession. The job market blows.
Why does it blows?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Obamacare, regulatory uncertainty, tax increases which are drawing-out the correction longer than it has to be.
Obamacare won't even be implemented until 2014.
Regulatory uncertainty is a cop-out claim since nothing stays the same forever.
Some taxes have decreased, and some were increased, to hack at debt and deficit.
The correction is protracted because it takes longer to recover from a Financial Crisis than cyclical recessions. The Great Recession was global and related to bubbles in Banking, SIFI, toxic debt instruments, currency speculation -- and some criminal activity too.
The job market blows because of structural changes in developed economies, globalization, higher efficiency/productivity, tech and info age advancements, longevity + extended working age + delayed retirements ....and not enough jobs to go around.
Rand, number of semesters depends on the university's calendar. I was using my local uni extension campus as comparison, and they have three four-month blocks. Point being that some in-state tuition can be really expensive, and the costs have risen dramatically the last decade or so. Some have lower "tuition" but jack up costs in extra mandatory "fees".
Exactly. Working 40 hrs/week @ $7.25/hour X 52 weeks/year = $15,000. Lower than Moody's $25,000 low-wage category. Households with two min. wage earners = $30,000. ONE household with THREE min. wage full time workers doesn't meet the mid-wage $50,000 threshold. You don't see the problem here?
Can you show me a link to your local uni's website charging for 4 Semesters per annum, because the word Semester means half of the year so that'd be weird.
Not going to check 50 states so just Googled for a random state and it seems Georgia State University charges for 2 semesters as just 4.8k for the first and 4.6k for the second so that's a lot less. Shocking.
http://www.gsu.edu/enrollment/images..._Undergrad.pdf
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote