Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (736049)	8/30/2013 3:18:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1577025

There is also the "work ethic" factor to measuring wages. Work ethic involves the concepts of reward for hard work and for diligence, which can certainly be displayed in entry level positions. Beyond that, it includes increasing value by demonstrating initiative, and in pursuing new and more valued skills. It is also measured by one's ability to establish, improve, or increase a market for goods and services etc. The idea of considering work ethics as a rewardable virtue is to the extent that it is mutually beneficial to the growth and development of the individual and to employers. Socialists argue the idea of 'work ethic' is a ploy to dupe the masses into being servants of the elite, and that their is nothing inherently good about working hard. There is also the argument in modern society that other factors have come into play with regard to the production of wealth and the plight of the poor. I'd argue that tried and true work ethic still has its place, while the world of economic riches is as fraught with corruption, greed, and the meaninglessness of materialism as ever.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (736049)	8/31/2013 11:23:36 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577025

>Good for setting a floor on wages. Stupid to assume it was ever meant to provide a "living wage." >Raising the minimum wage is all about trying to raise wages for everyone who earns by the hour. Currently the federal minimum wage is $7.25 (or around there). Raising it to $10 means everyone who currently makes $10 now needs to get a raise. So now you have to pay them maybe $13. But then those currently making $13 needs a raise as well. So now you have to hike up their pay. (There's a limit to this "trickle-up" effect, of course.) >Sounds like a noble goal, if it didn't directly lead to unemployment. This is because costs for labor go up, and small businesses that could not afford it will have to go out of business. Large corporations can afford it, but they're still affected and will consider the higher costs in closing stores or building new ones. Do you have any historical evidence that raising minimum wage will lead to an increase in unemployment? The WSJ said that it would in 1901. Never happened. It really doesn't happen, or if it does, it's rare. If McDonald's had to pay its employees $15/hour, the cost of a meal would go up 68 cents. And that's assuming that there's no give in its profit margin. Does that sound like a disaster? -Z