General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This comment just rubbed me the wrong way... [View all]Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)You say it isn't linear, but that is an admission that her position has merit. Her skills are currently worth twice the minimum. After the mentioned increase she will see her pay reduced back down to minimum, but this is apparently irrelevant to you because she might eventually see some of this back. If this is fair in regards to an equipment operator, why not a teacher? Why not set the new improved minimum to match the average salary of the teacher? The teacher won't see her salary adjusted to compensate, not in a linear manner, but according to you that's okay, so why the opposition? Is the teacher salary special to you in a way that an equipment operators salary is not?
Understand that you are already doing just that, only instead of a FULL teacher's salary you are saying that the pminimum should be some sizeable fraction thereof.
These are the contradictions that arise whenever an agent outside the supply / demand loop attempts to meddle. The government can no more decide what an hour of my time is worth than it can dictate the price of pa piece of art. My time is worth whatever amount I can trade it for. If I have valuable skills and people compete for my service I can ask for more. You want the government to negate this natural process by decree. And more, you seem to believe that they it's more jobscan do so in a way that only impacts those at the bottom.
The solution, as I said, is not dragging everyone else down to some new and improved minimum, it's more jobs creating competition for labor.