In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Connecticut - $10.10 minimum wage
RustyBones
Member Posts: 4,956
Thoughts on the new policy?
Connecticut lawmakers Wednesday approved raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, the highest for any state in the country and the same rate that President Barack Obama wants for the federal minimum wage.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/connecticut-approves-highest-state-minimum-wage-23075856
Connecticut lawmakers Wednesday approved raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour by 2017, the highest for any state in the country and the same rate that President Barack Obama wants for the federal minimum wage.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/connecticut-approves-highest-state-minimum-wage-23075856
Comments
To me by 2020 probably would have made more sense. But again this is a state right and issue, so I guess I dont have a problem with it.
Minumum wage is a double edged sword it truely is. One aspect is artificially inflates wages and tells business what to do and at times can be a poor policy. On the other hand if the companies werent forced they would still pay 50 cents an hour and keep wages from progressing.
To me by 2020 probably would have made more sense. But again this is a state right and issue, so I guess I dont have a problem with it.
Agreed.
Minumum wage is a double edged sword it truely is. One aspect is artificially inflates wages and tells business what to do and at times can be a poor policy. On the other hand if the companies werent forced they would still pay 50 cents an hour and keep wages from progressing.
To me by 2020 probably would have made more sense. But again this is a state right and issue, so I guess I dont have a problem with it.
Agreed. Most states with costs of living above the national average have minimum wages that are greater than the Federal minimum wage. If a minimum wage is going to be imposed, the individual states should be able to tailor it to the costs of living within the state.
Brad Steele
It amazes me how some people think money is free. They think employers will simply pay their workers more and that's the end of it. They are too flipping stupid to accept that some people will get fired as cost cutting measures. Some people will not get hired for same reason. And costs for all consumers will go up.
Why stop at $10.10? (And why such an odd amount?) Why not make the minimum wage $100 and hour and make everybody rich?
Too old to live...too young to die...
The irony is that McD's workers will now be unable to but that Big Mac after the price goes up to cover the increased cost.
It amazes me how some people think money is free. They think employers will simply pay their workers more and that's the end of it. They are too flipping stupid to accept that some people will get fired as cost cutting measures. Some people will not get hired for same reason. And costs for all consumers will go up.
Why stop at $10.10? (And why such an odd amount?) Why not make the minimum wage $100 and hour and make everybody rich?
Agreed and like I said its a double edged sword. Do you really believe companies would fairly pay their employees, I think anybody would be ignorant to think that most would.
CT has always been in the top 10 states for poor business climate, thus no surprise here.
If the lowest paid workers were given a raise from their average $9.80 to 14 bucks starting Jan 1st of the year studied (2012 I think it was), the average customer at that store would have paid 45 cents more for the goods they bought.....45 CENTS!!! This also keeping the same profit margin for that store from the year before.....
I found that very interesting......
There was a study done by Penn state here locally a little while back that studied what would happen to prices at the locally owned Sporting goods store if they paid their lowest paid employees 14 bucks an hour. Here's the deal though, the way I see a situation like this. If you raised your lowest employees from $9.80 to $14.00, that would be a 42.9% increase in wages. But to keep things on an even keel, you need to give your more experienced, higher wage employees, all employees to be exact, that same 42.9% increase. Did the study include an across the board increase, or just the lowest earners?
quote:Originally posted by the middle
There was a study done by Penn state here locally a little while back that studied what would happen to prices at the locally owned Sporting goods store if they paid their lowest paid employees 14 bucks an hour. Here's the deal though, the way I see a situation like this. If you raised your lowest employees from $9.80 to $14.00, that would be a 42.9% increase in wages. But to keep things on an even keel, you need to give your more experienced, higher wage employees, all employees to be exact, that same 42.9% increase. Did the study include an across the board increase, or just the lowest earners?
The same retail employee who worked harder and smarter, maybe advanced a little in the company, and makes $12 an hour either:
a. now makes less than the entry level person in the company
b. is given a small raise and is equal to them
c. is given a proportionate raise and is now making $16 an hour
quote:Originally posted by the middle
There was a study done by Penn state here locally a little while back that studied what would happen to prices at the locally owned Sporting goods store if they paid their lowest paid employees 14 bucks an hour. Here's the deal though, the way I see a situation like this. If you raised your lowest employees from $9.80 to $14.00, that would be a 42.9% increase in wages. But to keep things on an even keel, you need to give your more experienced, higher wage employees, all employees to be exact, that same 42.9% increase. Did the study include an across the board increase, or just the lowest earners?
The study accounted for the floor employees, which numbered the most. It only had 4 supervisors and a general manager above them....then the owner, so even if they did get 42.9% more...it still would be a drop in the bucket.
They did a series of them for about a month....grocery store, restaurant, and a convenience store....all were in the same ball park, with the restaurant having the biggest increase in customer costs...( ($1.86 more per customer).....
Bottom line is...wages are way too low across the board...NOTHING is cheap anymore, and SOMEBODY has to make money to buy the goods....
Its no longer like the old days...where labor was the costly idem....its done now with far less people, in all fields. Not too many things are labor intensive any longer....raw materials is what costs the most now, just the reverse of old days.
Agreed and like I said its a double edged sword. Do you really believe companies would fairly pay their employees, I think anybody would be ignorant to think that most would.
Fair Pay is so subjective as to be meaningless.
One view of fair is a living wage for a single wage earner. This would be a minimum of $ 20.00 per hour in even the lowest C.O.L. markets, more if the employee had family.
Another view of fair, is simply what the market will bear. In today's environment there is an over-supply of labor which should drive the average wage down.
Yet another view, and the one that most companies in my industry operate within, is paying what it takes to keep good employees and keeping them happy. An employee that is not constantly looking for a better job or better paying job is more productive and gives a greater return per dollar invested than one who is not happy with his situation.
Fair is a metric that is not possible to quantify. Fair is simply paying an employee what he is worth to you. Nothing more and nothing less. If that employee also believes the wage is fair, you have the best possible scenario.
Edit:
As an example, we could afford to pay all of our employees more than we do. Doing so, however, would reduce the amount of capital we have to invest in more equipment, reduce the amount of capital we have to carry a large job, and potentially put us in a position where we are more beholden to a bank than we would otherwise be. If we were to limit our options in this manner, we would limit our future hiring potential, as we would become less and less competitive for future work.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by nards444
Agreed and like I said its a double edged sword. Do you really believe companies would fairly pay their employees, I think anybody would be ignorant to think that most would.
Fair Pay is so subjective as to be meaningless.
One view of fair is a living wage for a single wage earner. This would be a minimum of $ 20.00 per hour in even the lowest C.O.L. markets, more if the employee had family.
Another view of fair, is simply what the market will bear. In today's environment there is an over-supply of labor which should drive the average wage down.
Yet another view, and the one that most companies in my industry operate within, is paying what it takes to keep good employees and keeping them happy. An employee that is not constantly looking for a better job or better paying job is more productive and gives a greater return per dollar invested than one who is not happy with his situation.
Fair is a metric that is not possible to quantify. Fair is simply paying an employee what he is worth to you. Nothing more and nothing less. If that employee also believes the wage is fair, you have the best possible scenario.
Edit:
As an example, we could afford to pay all of our employees more than we do. Doing so, however, would reduce the amount of capital we have to invest in more equipment, reduce the amount of capital we have to carry a large job, and potentially put us in a position where we are more beholden to a bank than we would otherwise be. If we were to limit our options in this manner, we would limit our future hiring potential, as we would become less and less competitive for future work.
I totally agree and thats why again I say a double edged sword and it can be a dangerous game to play with. Although I still contend without a baseline(now again that baseline can be ambigous, and up for interpretation like you say) maybe not all and maybe not even a 51% majority but a vast amount of employers would not pay a fair wage, they just wouldnt. Of course it would seem fair to them but thats hardly a measure to determine fair, as Hitler thought he was fair as well. Fair shouldnt not be determined by what it takes to runa family or to buy a big screen TV, fair is paying somebody for they are worth skill wise and the product or service they create.
Even if regional economics and industry standards put a fair wage on say "x" skill position in a given company and say that amount was $1 an hour you probably would be lucky to see half of that from a lot of places even if they could logically afford it. Now companies like you said if they wish to keep the best employees they are going to competively pay them and thats true. And thats why I say leave it with the market. But at the same token you also have the possibility of a given industry banding together. If that X skill position I already eluded in say all fairness commands $1 an hour, competing companies could still stay competivie with wages by keeping a range, but they may collectively keep that range say in the 40-50cents an hour range on purpose. Companies that compete do that in pricing and other areas as well, it still gives leway but still mutually protects both sides.
Im not necessarily a proponent of minumum wage but I also see it as a necessary evil. And its more of a wage protection for even higher earners, as if you didnt have bottom the bottom could be set much closer to 0 brininging everybody else down as well. And I dont think mimumum wage should be intended to keep low paying jobs competitive with other jobs and shouldnt be intended to support a family, they just arent and thats how many view it.
quote:Originally posted by nards444
Agreed and like I said its a double edged sword. Do you really believe companies would fairly pay their employees, I think anybody would be ignorant to think that most would.
Fair Pay is so subjective as to be meaningless.
One view of fair is a living wage for a single wage earner. This would be a minimum of $ 20.00 per hour in even the lowest C.O.L. markets, more if the employee had family.
Another view of fair, is simply what the market will bear. In today's environment there is an over-supply of labor which should drive the average wage down.
Yet another view, and the one that most companies in my industry operate within, is paying what it takes to keep good employees and keeping them happy. An employee that is not constantly looking for a better job or better paying job is more productive and gives a greater return per dollar invested than one who is not happy with his situation.
Fair is a metric that is not possible to quantify. Fair is simply paying an employee what he is worth to you. Nothing more and nothing less. If that employee also believes the wage is fair, you have the best possible scenario.
Edit:
As an example, we could afford to pay all of our employees more than we do. Doing so, however, would reduce the amount of capital we have to invest in more equipment, reduce the amount of capital we have to carry a large job, and potentially put us in a position where we are more beholden to a bank than we would otherwise be. If we were to limit our options in this manner, we would limit our future hiring potential, as we would become less and less competitive for future work.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/03/31/steve-jobs-fired-google-employee-reaction/?ncid=webmail9
just found this. Kind of goes back to my belief of wage fixing and that companies will not be fair.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by nards444
Agreed and like I said its a double edged sword. Do you really believe companies would fairly pay their employees, I think anybody would be ignorant to think that most would.
Fair Pay is so subjective as to be meaningless.
One view of fair is a living wage for a single wage earner. This would be a minimum of $ 20.00 per hour in even the lowest C.O.L. markets, more if the employee had family.
Another view of fair, is simply what the market will bear. In today's environment there is an over-supply of labor which should drive the average wage down.
Yet another view, and the one that most companies in my industry operate within, is paying what it takes to keep good employees and keeping them happy. An employee that is not constantly looking for a better job or better paying job is more productive and gives a greater return per dollar invested than one who is not happy with his situation.
Fair is a metric that is not possible to quantify. Fair is simply paying an employee what he is worth to you. Nothing more and nothing less. If that employee also believes the wage is fair, you have the best possible scenario.
Edit:
As an example, we could afford to pay all of our employees more than we do. Doing so, however, would reduce the amount of capital we have to invest in more equipment, reduce the amount of capital we have to carry a large job, and potentially put us in a position where we are more beholden to a bank than we would otherwise be. If we were to limit our options in this manner, we would limit our future hiring potential, as we would become less and less competitive for future work.
http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2014/03/31/steve-jobs-fired-google-employee-reaction/?ncid=webmail9
just found this. Kind of goes back to my belief of wage fixing and that companies will not be fair.
Not enough information here. Typically, any employee that would be poached by another company in violation of a non-compete clause is going to be a higher level employee that, given what Apple and Google pay higher level employees, would be earning 6 figures easy.
One of the largest wage-fixing organizations today, including a two-tiered, screw the new guy arrangement is the UAW.
But to your point: Yes, some companies will screw their employees if given the chance. They are forced, however, to weigh this against being left with the quality of employees that accept getting screwed.
Brad Steele
The minimum wage is a joke that makes the supporters of it the punchline.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Why not just bring back SLAVERY [?] [?]
If you work for minimum wage you are slave unto your self.EBT cards is a form of self imposed slavery..so is a minimum wage law..Let the work ethic creat your wage,not sme dumb law..If you knew the truth,minimum wages creat unemployment! The Government knows how to appease the mass's..Give them a nickel raise...slavery is alive and well..[:o)]
Whatever the minimum wage is , someone will think it needs to be more. You will never satisfy a liberal. They are like a woman, even when you think they are satisfied, they are just faking it. Don
I feel sorry for your wife.
Don
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
Whatever the minimum wage is , someone will think it needs to be more. You will never satisfy a liberal. They are like a woman, even when you think they are satisfied, they are just faking it. Don
I feel sorry for your wife.
Don
Thank you. Don
quote:Originally posted by footlong
Why not just bring back SLAVERY [?] [?]
If you work for minimum wage you are slave unto your self.EBT cards is a form of self imposed slavery..so is a minimum wage law..Let the work ethic creat your wage,not sme dumb law..If you knew the truth,minimum wages creat unemployment! The Government knows how to appease the mass's..Give them a nickel raise...slavery is alive and well..[:o)]
let's take that one step further.
1. minimum wage goes up, yet at the same time I am still in charge of the net profits of the company (which is what I was hired to maximize).
2. I now have to run a new cost vs profit analysis.
3. One area I can reduce this increase in labor is to reduce the number of full time employees I have and use part time employees to work only during peak hours.
4. Another way I can further reduce the overhead is to make EVERY employee a part time employee, and thus drop the full time employee's health insurance. I will simply fill the labor void by hiring more part timers to fill the need.
5. Any new hires will also have to have a higher degree of education, a better appearance ( no tattoos, no crazy piercings, etc) and be not only more professional but also more productive. WHY can I expect this??? because I won't be the only company cutting needless expenses like full time benefits, and a certain portion of the work force will, while making more money per hour, be working less hours, and thus making even LESS money.
Now even more people end up on gov't assistance, with welfare checks and EBT cards. That then further burdens those that have jobs, and increases the ripple effect that "assistance" programs create.
Money has to come from somewhere. In order to put it over here,....you have to take it from somewhere else.
The only thing raising the minimum wage does is speed up inflation. Inflation can be helpful if you're deep in debt with no hope of ever getting out of debt. Kinda sucks for everybody else though.
I love the comments about how if it wasn't for minimum wage companies wouldn't pay their people properly. I don't see it that way, nobody forced you to take a job that treats you like crap and pays poorly, go find a better paying job, or better yet, get an education so you are worth more money
seems then Hawaii ought to rise their $60K a year welfare to $100K....that should make the govt happy..like I should care considering the theory that because you exist your are owed everything to live comfortably
I have often wondered what the minimum wage is in Africa? Is there a minimum wage in Mexico?
quote:Originally posted by spasmcreek
seems then Hawaii ought to rise their $60K a year welfare to $100K....that should make the govt happy..like I should care considering the theory that because you exist your are owed everything to live comfortably
I have often wondered what the minimum wage is in Africa? Is there a minimum wage in Mexico?
Probably not. But you cant really compare our economy to those that are really non existent.