The issue is not about what they deserve to be paid. This argument is invalid. The issue we have is that the minimum wage of the past was a stronger standard, providing significantly more buying power than it does today. After its creation in 1938, the value of the minimum wage rose relatively steadily until its value reached a high point in 1968 (when its nominal value was $1.60 an hour). Thereafter, it suffered dramatic erosion as Congress failed to adequately correct for inflation over time. The minimum wage of $1.60 an hour in 1968 would be $10.90 today when adjusted for inflation [see the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index inflation calculator.] To be honest, its long past overdue. You cannot afford to live these days without a raise. We can only assume that workplaces would pay their employees fairly, but alas the world is not so kind. Where we have workplaces whom have stepped up, and paid for classes, benefits, and fair wages, they are praised... but for the alter, you have a dependent population that must siphon a social support system, more adequately stated, they are still living by the coffers of the taxpayers. I am speaking from a viewpoint as a physician assistant, and I understand as well, as I have lived while making minimum wage. When you see the disparity, it is astounding between upper and lower classes. Do not get me wrong, I do believe that jobs that require minimum qualifications should be paid minimum wage, however, it should at least be adjusted for inflation, if not...well the rich get richer...as the saying goes. The minimum wage system was designed to protect people, and not be used as a bare minimum, that allows for depraved indifference for those whom are the backbone of your company. In some localities, it does pay decently compared to other similar positions, BUT...(there is always that but) you have to work there for approximately a decade. There is something to be said about this...and how long it takes to get to inflation standards. Secondly, you have to factor in the market, for example, NY/NJ/CA., any of those markets would not only have a state minimum wage law, but also a high cost of living. So there are many factors in which you may see pay fluctuate. Its economics in principle. It does not make the very point moot at all, just another dynamic in which things appear deceiving. Regardless, many people need a job, it does not matter for what reasons, and many will not take state subsidies due to pride, or retirement, or whatever reason. They want to work. You have a market that at one time was segmented for the youth and yet the reality of the situation is that people are brought out of retirement, and those whom range limited means to very much education are falling in line to scoop up these positions. There really is no ideal candidate. At the end of the day, we can admit that these jobs would be well positioned for the youth, and should not be for what we call lazy, unmotivated, workers but the answer is always, someone has to do it, or they fall in a catch 22, where they get criticized as welfare recipients (when the reality is, most of Walmart earners still utilize the state subsidies). See, the reality of it all is quite amusing, and sad. The workplaces have figured how to subsidize everything they do not want to pay, onto the state. Be it healthcare, food stamps, or child care expenses, FASFA for education... it is that reason the employers unlike many or its European counterparts, can rake in billions without investing in their work force or their people. They just realize they can get away with doing the bare minimum, and uncle Sam can foot the bill.
Posted on: Sun, 16 Nov 2014 05:52:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015