Originally posted by Sinfjotle

---

Hell, unless Gamespot/EB has gotten really cheap and pays less than $6.00, it shouldn't be a big deal.

---

Originally posted by Sinfjotle

---

Considering practically no one makes minimum wage. (Like 4% of the work force I believe it was will actually be effected by this), there won't be much of a difference.

Hell, unless Gamespot/EB has gotten really cheap and pays less than $6.00, it shouldn't be a big deal.

---

Originally posted by Dr_Death16

---

So 4% of the nation makes between $5.15 and $7.25? That doesn't seem right, really. Unless maybe you're forgetting that not just people making exact minimum wage are affected by this.

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

It's not the percent of the workers that matters, its the percent of the total money earned.

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

It's not the percent of the workers that matters, its the percent of the total money earned.

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Five people making $10000 (aproximately $5.50/hr, 40hr/week, 52wk/yr), versus one making $50000 a year.

Those five people will get a much more major change, versus the $50k who won't feel much of anything.

Yet, with this way of thinking, those five people are still just 50% of the consideration, and a single person is now 50% as well.

I would like to point out that this is a flawed way of thinking, in that it would benefit a few (the wealthy) and go against many (the not-so-wealthy).

This is exactly the type of thinking we don't need.

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Five people making $10000 (aproximately $5.50/hr, 40hr/week, 52wk/yr), versus one making $50000 a year.

Those five people will get a much more major change, versus the $50k who won't feel much of anything.

Yet, with this way of thinking, those five people are still just 50% of the consideration, and a single person is now 50% as well.

I would like to point out that this is a flawed way of thinking, in that it would benefit a few (the wealthy) and go against many (the not-so-wealthy).

This is exactly the type of thinking we don't need.

---

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

It's not the percent of the workers that matters, its the percent of the total money earned.

---

Five people making $10000 (aproximately $5.50/hr, 40hr/week, 52wk/yr), versus one making $50000 a year.

Those five people will get a much more major change, versus the $50k who won't feel much of anything.

Yet, with this way of thinking, those five people are still just 50% of the consideration, and a single person is now 50% as well.

I would like to point out that this is a flawed way of thinking, in that it would benefit a few (the wealthy) and go against many (the not-so-wealthy).

This is exactly the type of thinking we don't need.

---

Originally posted by Kasdarack

---

That's ridiculous! The highest percent of the money earned is earned by very few. And the min wage increase will affect those rich people the least.

---

Originally posted by Black Lord +

---

Quite frankly, I'm pretty pissed off... why... my reasoning.

Minimum wage was 5.15 in the good ole' state of Nebraska. Although, in bigger cities, most places paid around 7.50 an hour starting. Why? It's called competitive wages... Burger King needs to draw people from McDonald's by having a higher starting wage or the other way around. Minimum wage goes up to 7.25, they'll want to keep being competitive and start offering higher wages to starting employees... Does current employees wages go up, most likely not. Therefore me being stuck at 8.00 an hour means I will be stuck there most likely while the new shmucks will most likely start off at a higher wage.

Granted... there are no new shmucks coming here most likely, and if they do they'll be under me once I get promoted from HTML coder to Programmer.

---

Originally posted by Kasumi-Astra

---

Competitive wages in Burger King? Burger King doesn't want the best, it wants the easiest. The cheapest. This is the same across retail everywhere these days. As long as you can demonstrate you can follow the rules and listen to orders, you can work in any common shop anywhere.

The minimum wage does not just benefit the people at the baseline, it benefits everyone from the previous amount right up to the new $7 odd. If you're in the case that you've had a few rises anyway, your employer will probably review your situation again, as they've demonstrated that they thought it was neccessary in the past.

The minimum wage is there to protect the poorest from exploitation, not to protect the middle or upper class.

---