Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rodney · 10-11-2004, 11:58 AM

That earlier remark on Puritanism -- that belief in God was not enough, that your salvation or damnation was actually predestined by God -- is absolutely true. The way to show that you were one of God's elites (God would apparently never get around to telling you which group you were in until you died) was through life-long hard work and a minimum of loose living. These beliefs from the early American settlers in New England had a lot of effect on American culture in the long run.

People who are asking for a lowering of the federal minimum wage have already gotten their wish, in real terms. Through most of its life, minimum wage was set at about 50 percent of the average wage. Over the last 25 years or so, Congress and the President have not seen fit to maintain that ratio in the face of inflation, so federal minimum wage is now only 1/3 of the average wage. Some states have higher wages, like California. Most states allow below-minimum-wage salaries for restaurant waitstaff.

Ace brings up an interesting point in saying he'd hire unskilled labor and train them, for a lesser wage. That used to be called a training wage, and I believe some businesses -- mainly fast-food chains -- still do it with the teenagers they hire, or
they used to. The issue is, would employers really bump up peoples' wages as they got more valuable? I can't tell you how many landlords I talked to or read about who said they'd lower rents if property taxes were rolled back in California, back in the '70s. I think I knew one guy that did it. The rest just smirked and kept the money. Ace, you might be that one guy, but I don't feel that it's realistic to expect a whole lot of businesses to act this way, especially the ones run by bean-counters who'll find a way to pay the training wage as long as possible and then get rid of people when their wages get too high. They don't care about the "value added" in that person, just about next quarter's profits.

Ace, I used to work in federal jobs programs on the county level back in the '70s (CETA, if anybody remembers), and we had a program called On-the-Job Training in which employers could choose people from a group of qualified applicants and be subsidized for 50 percent of their salaries for six months if they agreed to train them. You were supposed to keep them on board after the six months was up, but if you were having problems with them during the six month period you could blow the whistle to the jobs program and get rid of them. The idea was to encourage businesses to take a chance on people who were down and out.

It was a good program. Too bad it vanished in the early '80s, like a lot of other federal social programs both good and bad.

10-11-2004, 11:58 AM	#22 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	That earlier remark on Puritanism -- that belief in God was not enough, that your salvation or damnation was actually predestined by God -- is absolutely true. The way to show that you were one of God's elites (God would apparently never get around to telling you which group you were in until you died) was through life-long hard work and a minimum of loose living. These beliefs from the early American settlers in New England had a lot of effect on American culture in the long run. People who are asking for a lowering of the federal minimum wage have already gotten their wish, in real terms. Through most of its life, minimum wage was set at about 50 percent of the average wage. Over the last 25 years or so, Congress and the President have not seen fit to maintain that ratio in the face of inflation, so federal minimum wage is now only 1/3 of the average wage. Some states have higher wages, like California. Most states allow below-minimum-wage salaries for restaurant waitstaff. Ace brings up an interesting point in saying he'd hire unskilled labor and train them, for a lesser wage. That used to be called a training wage, and I believe some businesses -- mainly fast-food chains -- still do it with the teenagers they hire, or they used to. The issue is, would employers really bump up peoples' wages as they got more valuable? I can't tell you how many landlords I talked to or read about who said they'd lower rents if property taxes were rolled back in California, back in the '70s. I think I knew one guy that did it. The rest just smirked and kept the money. Ace, you might be that one guy, but I don't feel that it's realistic to expect a whole lot of businesses to act this way, especially the ones run by bean-counters who'll find a way to pay the training wage as long as possible and then get rid of people when their wages get too high. They don't care about the "value added" in that person, just about next quarter's profits. Ace, I used to work in federal jobs programs on the county level back in the '70s (CETA, if anybody remembers), and we had a program called On-the-Job Training in which employers could choose people from a group of qualified applicants and be subsidized for 50 percent of their salaries for six months if they agreed to train them. You were supposed to keep them on board after the six months was up, but if you were having problems with them during the six month period you could blow the whistle to the jobs program and get rid of them. The idea was to encourage businesses to take a chance on people who were down and out. It was a good program. Too bad it vanished in the early '80s, like a lot of other federal social programs both good and bad. Last edited by Rodney; 10-11-2004 at 12:06 PM..