Let's pay 16 year olds $31.2k to sweep floors!!!!

[Glassunion]

296. I'm not nitpicking shit. Go back to Post#185, and superimpose 18 on top of every instance of 16.

The exact same premise of my post works regardless of age, or occupation.

If you are 16 and have a full time job, it's for a damn good reason.
If you are 18 and have a full time job, it's for a damn good reason.
If you are 28 and have a full time job, it's for a damn good reason.
If you are 38 and have a full time job, it's for a damn good reason.
etc...

So, to answer your question... "Should a full time 18 year old burger flipper make $31.2k in some poor town?" - Yes. They are working because they need to support themselves or their family. If the business cannot afford to hire a full time employee at a living wage, then their business model is a failure and they should not be in that business in the first place. If they are only taking in $24K a year for themselves, they are in the wrong line of work, because they cannot manage that business for shit. They plan poorly, budget poorly, or the very premise of their enterprise is not sustainable.

The newest of my employees, is a young man I hired at probationary rate of $17.30 an hour for a position he had the most basic of skills in. Skill set: Can you turn on a laptop and can you spell "PC"? Great! Your hired. We had to train him in almost every single aspect of the job. 2 years later he is making $22 an hour. He is still learning, but he will jump at every opportunity that we give him.

Why did I hire someone for an unskilled job, at $36K a year? Why did I raise his pay 27% over his initial rate over the next two years? Sure, he's a fantastic employee. But that's not the whole reason. I want to retain employees, and the primary reason I want to retain employees is quite selfish. It saves me money. Fact: paying someone over market saves me money in the long run. Turn over is expensive, especially in an unskilled position. There are hiring costs, payroll costs, training costs, etc... I don't have any of these costs with an experienced employee.

So, it makes good business sense, even with obscenely tight margins, to pay my employees more than the guy up the street. I perform better than the guy up the street, because my employees are happy. Happy employees are great for business, because they are the face of the company.

How many small companies can say that they have not had to replace an employee in over two years? How many companies can say that they have not had to terminate an employee in over 9 years? Not many at all.

If your business is built on the premise that you can pay your full time employees so poorly that they qualify for government assistance, you are a failure. Your business is a failure, and you are in the wrong line of work.