Sunday, January 19, 2014

Are You Paid What You’re Worth?

Most people would probably say “NO”, but they would have trouble defining what their worth really is. A good definition of what is the right pay for a worker is: You don’t get paid for time you work, you get paid for the value you bring to the time you work. In other words, is your production worth it to the company or organization to pay you the amount they pay you?

Many people today feel that they should be paid for the job classification, regardless of what they contribute to it. Equal pay for equal work, is the rallying cry for years by the “feminists” when they petition for getting more pay for women. Equal pay determination is easy if two people are doing the same or similar work. But, the objectivity blurs when you try to compare two dissimilar jobs. How do you compare a teacher with a truck driver, or a sales clerk with a carpenter etc., as other factors also enter into the determination of what a person should be paid?

Due to physical differences in men and women, there will always be some disparagement in how men and women are compensated. Men, overall, are physically stronger than women, so therefore they are more prone to be attracted to jobs that many women shy away from such as, firemen, combat military, manual labor etc. That’s also true with women, who tend to be attracted to certain jobs that men won’t do, to any great extent, such as, nurses, elementary teachers, checkout clerks etc. That’s not to say men and women don’t crossover to work at the jobs mostly held by the opposite sex, but, in the main, stereotypical job selection by men and women hold up as stated.

The “political football” of raising the minimum wage, is an area where the government gets involved when it really shouldn’t. To have the government set an arbitrary base pay rate for hourly workers without any consideration as to how that wage can be compared to production, as needed by the employer, generally brings “unintended consequences”. It generally means, mostly in the teenage group, that there will be fewer jobs available, thereby causing higher unemployment for those on the lower rung of the pay ladder. By raising the minimum wage, you will also cause a demand for an upward adjustment by other workers immediately above the newly set minimum wage plateau. Think of all the entry level positions that might be lost here in the Delray/Boca area, if we price these workers out of the market by artificially raising their wages without any thought of the economic hardship placed on the employer. That might seem beneficial for the worker, but if his employer has difficulty meeting that increase, that worker may be laid off or have his work week cut back. That’s an example of the “unintended consequences” of trying to be “generous” to workers without regard to the value that the worker brings to the job.

Some use Europe as an example of putting into place higher minimum wages, but when you see that the unemployment rate, in most European countries, is twice that of ours, it should give pause for thought that artificially determining what someone should receive as pay, determined by the government, might not be in the best interests of the worker or for the country’s economy, as a whole.

The demagogues, of course, will vilify those who would oppose a spike up in the minimum wage, but pure, simple economic logic, will win out in a serious debate as to its merit, but emotion seems to always trump logic, most of the time, so the pressure to constantly raise the minimum wage will be forever present and most likely approved by the pandering politicians. Just recently, there have been demonstrations outside fast-food restaurants demanding a $15 per hour minimum wage (by the way, many of those protesters were supplied by the unions as paid protesters). It has been determined that approx. 3% of the work force works for the minimum wage, mostly teenagers getting their first taste of paid employment, and seniors looking to supplement their retirement.. Really, should a floor sweeper, a hamburger flipper, or a Wal-Mart greeter etc. command the rate of $15 per hour? The question could be asked, is being employed at $7.65 per hour better than being unemployed at $15 per hour? The answer should be quite obvious.

In conclusion, politicians should let the “free market” determine the pay of the workers (except in instances of coercion and fraud or exploitation), because the unintended consequences of arbitrarily setting pay scales, is more detrimental to the worker than letting the productivity of the worker determine his worth in the marketplace.

Remember, you don’t get paid for the hour. You get paid for the value you bring to the hour.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share


George G said...

Ah! The big "Ls" Liberal & Logic.
Collective bargaining forces
the employer to pay the good worker the same as the slacker. Union demands defy logic and enforces Chuck on the Right Side's logic.

Frank Parenti said...

The biggest canard by the loony left is that women make only 77¢ on the dollar as compared to men. That figure used by the libs hasn't changed in almost 40 years. Today, career women with no kids make as much (and in some cases more) than men. When women choose employment, having kids at home, they tend to take lesser paying jobs. That's the difference that the "Feminazi's" don't tell you. Raising the minimum wage can be called "racist" (the libs favorite term) because it will increase the teenage black employment which is all ready approaching 40%. It makes no economic sense to arbitrarily set a base hourly pay rate.