Author Topic: Evil Entrepreneur  (Read 20093 times)

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2015, 11:01:32 PM »
Fairly recently, just a few years ago, I worked in a minimum wage job. There was a lot of work in that company that could have been done to make things run more smoothly, but just didn't get done because there was no 'bottom line' to it.
They would have had to pay less than minimum wage to make that work viable. So why not hire some really stupid people, or handicapped people to do that work? They quite simply couldn't, since the company couldn't justify the value the work on the minimum wage.
A higher minimum wage doesn't consider the welfare of the really stupid or the handicapped. Is it really better for these people to sit at home and collect benefits? We could still give them benefits if their income was very low, but supplemented with work income. I don't like the idea of forcing people to be useless.

puglogic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2015, 05:09:34 PM »
Do the "really stupid" not have rent to pay, food to buy, utilities to pay, health insurance payments?   I get your point, but minimum wage folks are talking about paying people enough to not be on the verge of homelessness on the last day of every month.  The cheapest insurance for someone my age and gender on our exchange is still close to $300.00 a month, more than a minimum-wage worker takes home in a week. 

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2015, 07:16:29 PM »
Hi puglogic. Not sure if I get your point. Is it that we should have a higher minimum wage so that poor people have more money to spend?

puglogic

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2015, 07:57:14 PM »
My point was that, "stupid people" or not, a civilized country mandates a minimum wage that actually approaches paying for the realities of life, like housing, food, utilities, basic transportation, and health coverage.  $1150.00/month take home doesn't "buy" much these days in most parts of the country, even if you share a home with someone else. 

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3052
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2015, 07:17:44 AM »
The minimum wage is $0.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2015, 08:08:15 PM »
Hi puglogic. Thanks, now I understand your point. So, are you thinking that employers should just be ordered to pay everyone at the bottom more?
That doesn't seem very kind. Just end up with lots of unemployed teenagers, plus the stupid and handicapped. Cutting the bottom 20% of the population right out of normal society seems harsh to me. What's your suggestion?

FarmStash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #56 on: November 28, 2015, 07:03:00 PM »
Do the "really stupid" not have rent to pay, food to buy, utilities to pay, health insurance payments?   I get your point, but minimum wage folks are talking about paying people enough to not be on the verge of homelessness on the last day of every month.  The cheapest insurance for someone my age and gender on our exchange is still close to $300.00 a month, more than a minimum-wage worker takes home in a week.

We technically already pay them more than minimum wage with things such as food stamps, housing vouchers, and insurance credits/ coverage.  Minimum wage is meant to be a base wage for entry level/ temporary workers which hopefully take the initiative to aquire knowledge and skills through the job or outside education.  For the most part the jobs while maybe more physically demanding do not require large amounts of skill or knowledge to get.  If the wage is to high what incentive is their to move up.

That being said it probably should probably be somewhat higher. The right thing to do would probably be to tie it to an index of inflation and leave the politicians out of it so we don't have this revolving argument every few years.

TomTX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3302
  • Location: Texas
Re: Evil Entrepreneur
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2015, 05:41:30 AM »
There shouldn't be a minimum wage without a minimum productivity.

We already have that.  With at-will employment, any employer can decide what level that is and replace the worker if they don't meet that level.  So higher min. wage would help the worker out, cause the employer already can get the minimum productivity they want, or fire the person.

Interestingly, I have seen an example of pay/productivity value in construction jobs.

Contractor 1 has been winning most bids for the past several years. He pays his craftspeople $20-$25/hr. I've always thought that his jobs are slow - seems to take much longer than it should.

Contractor 2 came on the scene about a year ago, significantly underbidding Contractor 1 (25% or more) - Does he squeeze his employees to cut costs and make bids? Nope, he pays his craftspeople $40-$45/hr.

Quality of the job is at least as good, but his jobs go MUCH faster. Contractor 2 completes the job in half the time. The craftspeople are paid almost twice as much, and are twice as productive. Where does his savings come in? Overhead. This is a pretty capital-intensive specialty - remote work. By being twice as fast, he cuts overhead in half (Example: Industrial compressor @ $8k/month, probably the same in diesel cost to run it). He also saves half the per diem/travel cost for his workers since they are on the jobsite half as long. His managers/QC/foremen don't make double what Contractor 1 pays, but somewhat better. Probably saves 60+% there on a per-job basis. One other difference - he doesn't cheap out on equipment, so he doesn't have all the breakdowns/downtime/productivity losses that Contractor 1 seems to have. Maybe his equipment overhead savings is only 45% instead of 50%.

The real kicker? He is using some of the exact same craftspeople that Contractor 1 used to hire.