In response to:

Poll: 71 Percent Support Raising the Minimum Wage

DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:17 PM
See I think you all are missing the big picture here. So I'll give you The Doctor's two rules. Well not really rules but aphorisms. Yeah that's it aphorisms. 1. "Low skilled" does not necessarily mean easy. 2. You usually get what you pay for.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:18 PM
How does that affect minimum wage, in your opinion, Roy?
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:30 PM
It means that it would be very difficult to retain people that are making a couple of bucks an hour with no bennies. You are going to have a massive turnover rate and will end up spending more in training costs every month than you saved paying that wage.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:36 PM
Not for minimum wage skills, Roy.

There is very little cost to train someone to perform a minimum wage job. Turn-over is higher as they seek to improve themselves; however, a well run business is going to try to develop that in-house.

You are correct that low skill does not always equate with easy. For example, I hire a hardworking person to dig a ditch. Will I pay that person minimum wage? Probably not. The job is worth more than that. However, if that person leans on his/her shovel 20% of the time, I am not getting that for which I am paying.

Another fallacy, in that line of thinking, is if I have a $5/hr job, I am not going to hire anyone to fill it at $10/hr. I will merge that with other employees, making the impact on each of them
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:37 PM
less. The person who would have gladly taken the $5/hr job is still unemployed, and not likely to become employed until he can gain enough skill to fill a much higher value position.
Steve18 Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:49 PM
Most minimum wage workers have NO bennies. And in time like these, and a 14% unemployment rate, in actuality, a minimum wage with no bennies trumps no job, and no bennies. Nobody in their right mind works at Whattaburger for the bennies..Cause there ain't none. Just a paycheck, when the only other option is "zip".
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:51 PM
Unfortunately, Steve, with the current unemployment bennies, many people are better off than if they worked for the wages they are worth.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:53 PM
Well you are overlooking the fact that the floors still need to be swept everyday. Sure you would be able to find someone to fill that position for even less than 5 dollars an hour. Desperate people will work for next to nothing. But that doesn't mean that in a civilized society we should take advantage of that.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 3:58 PM
Did you not read my post? Currently, it is the responsibility of other employees to sweep the floors.

You look at it as my taking advantage of someone. I look at it as giving someone an opportunity to work. Since I try to advance from within the company, always a good business idea, I am giving one person an opportunity they would not have if I have to pay more than making it a separate job is worth.

btw, I am using $5 & 10/hr as examples. They are not representative of what I actually pay for new hires.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 4:08 PM
Well that just decreases the efficiency of the other employees. But you are not the only one doing that.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 4:12 PM
No, actually, it doesn't. They find plenty of time while machines are being set-up, to keep their stations clean, as well as the common area assigned to them.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 4:13 PM
Have you really ever owned a business, Roy?
weluvdarams Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 4:25 PM
I don't believe you have ever run a business, Roy. You sound like a pointy-headed professor, all of whose theories work just fine on paper.
nawlins72 Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 5:52 PM
"Sure you would be able to find someone to fill that position for even less than 5 dollars an hour. Desperate people will work for next to nothing. But that doesn't mean that in a civilized society we should take advantage of that."

Ahhh so now the business owner should ignore the marginal productivity of the job and just pay wages based on some arbitrary "civilized society" value? Great model for losing money.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 7:48 PM
Yes I have owned a business.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 7:56 PM
That surprises me. Were you involved in the day to day operation?

Are you referring to an M.D.'s office? From experience, I know that is quite a bit different than manufacturing.

Anyway, what do you do with a mandated increase in the minimum wage increase?
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 7:58 PM
Well that was my whole point. If unemployment is under 5 per pent that is considered full employment. Obviously if the employers couldn't afford it and were losing money people would have been laid off and unemployment would have been higher.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:07 PM
Well then why are you contemplating hiring someone for any amount of money, psydoc?
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:08 PM
IC...or, okay...I did not see that as a point in our discussion. When I had a difficult time finding employees, a minimum wage was not needed. I paid what the market demanded. When unemployment is high, I pay what the going rate is. If a minimum wage interferes with that, I hire less people, and demand more productivity.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:08 PM
I owned a trucking company.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:12 PM
Roy said, "Well then why are you contemplating hiring someone for any amount of money, psydoc?
------
I know you think all we capitalist business people are heartless SOBs, but that is no where near the truth. I am going to give you one example of something I, and many of my friends, have hundreds of times during our lives.

An employee of mine came to me to ask if I could hire his nephew. He was, according to my employee, retarted. It turned out his cognitive skills were diminished. He lived with his mother who was getting on in age, and he was worried he would never be able to take care of himself.

I put him to work sweeping the floors, a job for which the other employees had previously been responsible. Barry did a good job,...
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:12 PM
but when finished with one room, stood leaning on his broom. He could not think he should go look for other floors that needed sweeping.

Long story short, I put a lot of effort into bringing Barry along, and now he is a press operator. He will never be rich; however, he will be able to live comfortably and take care of himself. I started Barry at $5/hr; today he earns $27/hr.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:14 PM
That is funny, Roy...so did I. I specialized in LTL logistics. That was one of my companies.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:22 PM
That's great, man. You have to show some folks how to work because no one has ever taken the time to show them before. I don't mean the specifics of any particular job I mean a work ethic. So I applaud your initiative and patience.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:31 PM
Thanks, Roy. I also trained and put all of my drivers to work. Not one of them had any experience. When I would take them for their CDL test, the examiner used to ask if I trained them. Then he would say, they get the short test.

You are right. We do need to show people how to earn, that has been one of the aspects of my life that I think has helped me be successful.
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 8:41 PM
I used to kid my partner that he was the Vice-President of a two man operation. I was the owner -operator, dispatcher, and occasionally the un-loader. Trucking is a tough business though. Our big problem was getting paid. Most people are honest but it is the unscrupulous companies and the unscrupulous freight brokers you have to watch out for. And it's hard to do that when you are on the road constantly.
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 9:01 PM
That's for sure. I had some dedicated runs. One for GM, and one for Volvo, but the rest were LTL. I would not deal with a broker I did not know, and still had difficulty, once in a while, getting a settlement check.

I sold that company in 1999, perfect timing.

I would like to discuss business with you more, Roy. It has been a pleasure; however, I have to go fix supper for my wife.

I am retired, now. I have owned many businesses, and for the last 20 years of my working life, practiced psychology.

Yep, master of none! lol
DoctorRoy Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 9:18 PM
psydoc Wrote: Mar 09, 2013 9:42 PM
I look forward to chatting with you again, Roy. We obviously have some ideological differences; however, I always welcome a respectful discussion.

Take care.

Serious question: How on earth could anyone oppose a policy that would effectively give low-skilled workers (workers who barely make enough money to feed themselves, let alone a family), higher wages? After all, we live in difficult economic times, and it doesn’t seem wholly unreasonable that individuals working in low-skilled jobs should be entitled to a minimum, universally agreed upon standard of living. And indeed, as you might expect, this isn’t by any means an unpopular idea: According to a recent Gallup poll, almost all the Democrats -- and precisely half the Republicans -- surveyed would vote “for” a proposal...