Labor Pains In Colorado

We already have systems in place that determine eligibility for need-based government assistance. So this would hardly be a sticking point for what I've proposed. Remember: If a minimum exists at all in the system I've proposed, it will still only be a part of the package. There are many ways to implement it.The pay out could be in the form of monthly checks (which is already done under Social Security and cash assistance); or it could be paid out yearly (which is already done with tax refunds).There are already many frameworks in place that could carry the extra duties of ensuring basic incomes for the poor, and many such programs already exist (rental assistance, energy assistance, food stamps, education grants, healthcaresome states, etc.). All of these programs are 'basic income' programs, with the caveat that the income granted is required to be used toward the purchase of certain goods.So I'm a little baffled that people see this as something so radical. The system I'm proposing already exists; I'm just proposing to make it better.Jon

No; not necessarily. Chances are that many people played a part in bringing in that deal, and many other company resources were devoted to the task as well. So an individual laborer cannot claim credit for the whole amount.

I have not. But many have, which is why there are very few establishments that still offer grocery bagging service for every customer.For the majority of stores, grocery bagging is not a service that can generate more income for the store than $7.25/hour. And so the position goes unfilled. Just like for elevator operators, gas attendants, by-hand grain threshers, and any other number of jobs that no longer exist because the income they generate is less than the cost of the labor performing the service.Jon

tax refunds aren't government programs to help people. That money belongs to you because you paid too much in taxes. It's the government giving YOU money BACK to you, not giving you money. Where would the money come from? I don't think your sounds like a bad plan at all, but the likelihood that it ever gets even remotely implemented is pretty far fetched, while at the same time minimum wage IS being bandied about as something that may well be disposed of.

Your analysis is far too simplistic. If grocery bagging generated a break or an even better return on investment, hiring baggers might still be a bad bet for a capitalist, because the investor might do better by having more cashiers and operating more registers.Further, no person is completely responsible for even one penny of revenue coming into the grocery store. Who wants unthreshed grain?

Well, a few years ago, I was responsible for creating the quotes, contacting the customer and getting ordered a deal worth $1,000,000. The rest of the process was automated, so you could subtract the cost of the servers and a percentage for the web development for the programs. Even if all of that comes to $250,000, which seems a mite high, I should have gotten a pretty substantial payday from that.The fact of the matter is, people aren't paid based on what the company makes due to their contribution. They're paid the least amount that the comapny can get away with. That's why minimum wages need to be in place, to make sure the companies aren't gouging workers.The question then becomes, how should we determine the minimum? I think a reasonable place is the cost of a single parent raising a single child. Some will still fall through the cracks (a single parent raising more than one child, for instance), but those can be helped with other programs like the ones you mentioned.Otherwise, the minimum seems quite arbitrary.

Many poor people get their tax liability reduced to $0. Sure, because we live in a nation of people who actually entertain the thought of someone like Sarah Palin being a capable president.

Sure, but my point is that whatever someone is paid it cannot be more than the income they generate.

Nobody. But nobody wants to pay someone to do it by hand either. Sure. The business will evaluate all of the things it can do based on the return they provide and then do the things that provide the most return. And offering customer services that cost more money than they bring in will not be on that list of options.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Yes, but that does not mean that a profit cannot be made by hand threshing. It may mean that a larger profit can be made using hand threshing. True, but if your only observation is that businesses don't use baggers then you haven't show which of those distinct possibilities rules out businesses employing baggers. And only one of those possibilities is based on your simplistic method of valuing labor.

Which means that the government does not take their money.A tax refund is not income. Anyone can adjust their withholding so that they get a minimal tax refund without affecting their tax liability in any way.

I agree totally. This whole idea that a company will pay any more than they can get away with is fantasy for the most part.As far as the income generated by the employee, keep in mind that not all employees generate income directly. Take a custodian for example. People expect clean bathrooms, right? If they are not clean, customer dissatisfaction rises.How can the income generated by any given employee be calculated?

If the cost of performing the labor is greater than the income the labor generates, then the labor will not get performed. Which is why so many modern farming operations thresh the grain manually. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that bagging groceries does not bring in the required income to justify payment to the employees doing the work. And everyone who has mentioned baggers so far has supported this claim by pointing out that when bagging is offered it is only one of many duties performed as part of a multi-duty job position.My point is, and has been, that certain jobs only produce so much income and this limits the amount of money that can be earned by a laborer performing those jobs. In some cases, that limit is less than the minimum wage (currently and certainly less than any minimum that might be based on what it takes to support a family).Jon

Get rid of the employee and leave their job duties unperformed. Measure changes in company incomes.

And that isn't at all what I was talking about. What I was talking about is that tax refunds already represent a system by which the government cuts checks to people on a yearly basis.Jon