Not sure how to feel about this...

Let's discuss how this is a FAIL or a WIN?  Does it affect the LEGO secondary markets?  Would people rather work a job than part LEGO sets out or flip small sets considering the fact that parting out LEGO sets usually equates to a minimum wage job?

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by Ed Mack

​Poor people don't drink water, they drink cheap diet cola.

​Fixed

​Fixed

​I would soon rather drink non-alcoholic beer before touching diet soda.  Bleh.

For all of you Bricklinkers out there, have you ever really calculated how much you make an hour parting out sets?  Would working a $15 per hour cake job make you stop parting out sets or reselling smaller LEGO sets?

​i know a woman in my area that bricklinks part outs full time. she has a nice office space, two employees, and drives a brand new benz. its all about how you apply yourself.

i still gather and sell smaller sets to get that permission from amazon to sell during the holidays....

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by jerryherb

​i know a woman in my area that bricklinks part outs full time. she has a nice office space and two employees, and drives a brand new benz. its all about how you apply yourself.

​Hmm, I need to look into this.  Problem is if I part out full time I will be too busy driving in my new Benz to post on BP 

​Hmm, I need to look into this.  Problem is if I part out full time I will be too busy driving in my new Benz to post on BP 

​she told me shes been doing it over a decade through various sources and finally (a few years back) settled exclusively on brickink

​i know a woman in my area that bricklinks part outs full time. she has a nice office space and two employees, and drives a brand new benz. its all about how you apply yourself.

​I really have no idea.  I guess there are people who dabble and others who do support themselves off the process.  Minimum wage has been around $7-$8 per hour in the US for awhile.  I would imagine many people who part out sets do it for secondary income, but by doubling the minimum wage, would any of the thousands of people who part out sets in the US retire from the game to flip burgers or greet customers at Walmart?  Also, with higher wages, do LEGO sets become accessible to more consumers?

​I really have no idea.  I guess there are people who dabble and others who do support themselves off the process.  Minimum wage has been around $7-$8 per hour in the US for awhile.  I would imagine many people who part out sets do it for secondary income, but by doubling the minimum wage, would any of the thousands of people who part out sets in the US retire from the game to flip burgers or greet customers at Walmart?  Also, with higher wages, do LEGO sets become accessible to more consumers?

​The last part - yes, small and mid-sized sets are more accessible and may have more upside.  Large sets and exclusives are not likely to be more accessible as the cost of living/inflation should increase.  These large purchases are still going to be for Christmas or birthdays and not a regular purchase as they are for collectors, QFLL, and investors.

Also, with higher wages, do LEGO sets become accessible to more consumers?

Well for me if I made more money, I would buy more LEGO​. (Not necessarily bigger, just more. Heh.)

​I really have no idea.  I guess there are people who dabble and others who do support themselves off the process.  Minimum wage has been around $7-$8 per hour in the US for awhile.  I would imagine many people who part out sets do it for secondary income, but by doubling the minimum wage, would any of the thousands of people who part out sets in the US retire from the game to flip burgers or greet customers at Walmart?  Also, with higher wages, do LEGO sets become accessible to more consumers?

​

once minimum wage goes up, all wages go up. once every wage slave makes more money all prices will go up with it as the proprietors will have higher costs and will need to make more money to live or make their shareholders happy. unfortunately they will be many layoffs as a side effect. prices of toys will go up with the rest of luxuries and lets not forget that legos are a premium toy so i dont think they will be more accessible, maybe even the opposite to the less fortunate.  

 

i doubt folks (or even couples) making $15/hr with kids can afford much Lego.  I'm not knocking them but as many of us know, kids are expensive    these people are trying to survive.

​Minimum wage was not instituted for the inexperienced and young workers.  It was meant by FDR to be a living wage, and was introduced as part of the Fair Labor Act, which also did away with child labor and instituting the 40hr work week.  From the Cornell Law Website:

The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees.

In other words, it was meant to protect those  without a lot of bargaining power.  Menial laborers, factory workers, etc.

​The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. In 2015 dollars, that $0.25 has the purchasing power of $4.16. If the equivalent of $4.16 was considered a living wage at one point, then how is $7.25 not considered a livable wage today?

​The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. In 2015 dollars, that $0.25 has the purchasing power of $4.16. If the equivalent of $4.16 was considered a living wage at one point, then how is $7.25 not considered a livable wage today?

​perhaps because there was no crap for sale that we all buy today we supposedly cant live without 

​The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. In 2015 dollars, that $0.25 has the purchasing power of $4.16. If the equivalent of $4.16 was considered a living wage at one point, then how is $7.25 not considered a livable wage today?

​Things simply cost more now than they did then.

Average rent would be $365/month.  A new house: $52k.  Harvard Tuition: $7k

ETA: sorry the picture's huge.  I can't figure out how to shrink it.

Edited May 21, 201510 yr by tabolton314
tried to fix photo size.

Stamps are still a good deal.

​The minimum wage was implemented in 1938 at $0.25 per hour. In 2015 dollars, that $0.25 has the purchasing power of $4.16. If the equivalent of $4.16 was considered a living wage at one point, then how is $7.25 not considered a livable wage today?

The min wage was not introduced in 1938 to provide a living wage, it was introduced to discourage child factory labor. Today the goals of a minimum wage are obviously different and one can argue one of those goals is to provide a living wage for working adults. I guess we as a society have to decide if every adult who works full time deserves to be paid a minimum amount to be able to subsist. If not, should the tax payer be expected to chip in to make up the difference as they have been? I don' think there is a simple answer but any policy that helps to reduce the poverty among working, productive adults I am all for.

If people are interested in how minimum wage increases may or may not influence employment levels, this article is a good read and well sourced with recent evidence based studies.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/minimum-wage/6290482

 

As to whether or not a wage increase of this nature will affect Lego secondary markets, my opinion is that any such effects would be minimal, though definitely present.  Wage increases lead to price increases across most goods and services, the secondary Lego market included.  The fact that the wage rise it is only in a subset of the US national economy and an even smaller subset of the global Lego economy (Lego is becoming more of an international commodity every day) means the overall impact on Lego prices should be very small.  Plus it would be almost impossible to demonstrate said effects due to so many other variables or "noise" in the system.

 

 

Are any of the pro increase people here business owners? Even one?

Why stop at $15? $25 seems like you should be able to be better off. Can we get rid of the 84 different welfare programs? After all $15 is the living wage right?

There is the point if you make more money you qualify for less programs, yes they make more, but get less help in other places and at the end of the day have zero more spending power.

Are you pro no summer jobs for minorities? Remember back in the day when you could get that part time summer job? Plenty of studies show those are first to go, young kids can't get a silly job and end up with those idle hands

I am for no minimum wage at all.

Are any of the pro increase people here business owners? Even one?

Why stop at $15? $25 seems like you should be able to be better off. Can we get rid of the 84 different welfare programs? After all $15 is the living wage right?

There is the point if you make more money you qualify for less programs, yes they make more, but get less help in other places and at the end of the day have zero more spending power.

Are you pro no summer jobs for minorities? Remember back in the day when you could get that part time summer job? Plenty of studies show those are first to go, young kids can't get a silly job and end up with those idle hands

I am for no minimum wage at all.

​No offense, but I think you're missing the bigger picture of what "living wage" means. It means that you get to live above the poverty line. Study after study has also shown that people who live below the poverty line are more likely to commit crimes, be uneducated, get pregnant young, join gangs, have children that also stay below the poverty line.

It doesn't mean everyone works... welfare was supposed to be for people who couldn't work, not for people who don't want to work.

When you tweak programs to make it better for everyone, those losers who want to mooch off the system will really stand out instead of all poor people being lumped into the too lazy to work category. Study after study show that many people would rather work for a real wage than collect welfare.

Made up numbers but an example:

20k in wages from low min wage + 20k welfare programs= 40k year and poverty

30k in wages from higher min wage +10k welfare programs because qualify for less = 40k a year and still poverty 

Are any of the pro increase people here business owners? Even one?

Why stop at $15? $25 seems like you should be able to be better off. Can we get rid of the 84 different welfare programs? After all $15 is the living wage right?

There is the point if you make more money you qualify for less programs, yes they make more, but get less help in other places and at the end of the day have zero more spending power.

Are you pro no summer jobs for minorities? Remember back in the day when you could get that part time summer job? Plenty of studies show those are first to go, young kids can't get a silly job and end up with those idle hands

I am for no minimum wage at all.

​I own a business with about 8 employees, all of which do better than $15 per hour. I believe that someone working full time or close to it should be able to support themselves and have something left after rent, car, food. Period. Some of the comments in this thread have no basis in reality, nowhere in this country can anyone support themselves and a child, even with two people working, at the current minimum. Very few business owners will provide a living wage without some sort of prompting, the current back and forth here is ample evidence of that.

Made up numbers but an example:

20k in wages from low min wage + 20k welfare programs= 40k year and poverty

30k in wages from higher min wage +10k welfare programs because qualify for less = 40k a year and still poverty 

​made up numbers and made up results.

 

Made up numbers but an example:

20k in wages from low min wage + 20k welfare programs= 40k year and poverty

30k in wages from higher min wage +10k welfare programs because qualify for less = 40k a year and still poverty 

​If they are made up numbers, how do you know that's how it works - and I mean that respectfully?

10k less from govt programs also means:

1. Less burden on taxpayers overall, so govts can start to pay back some of those ridiculous debts they are carrying.
2. Perhaps they could redistribute the 50% savings .. 50% back to govt coffers, 50% back into programs.. so maybe they make 44k a year and are now out of poverty?

In the end, I don't think this makes a lick of a difference unless you fix what broke this all in the first place. Greedy corporations and the ultra elite. It's not the average worker or small business owner who are raking in the cash and stashing it away. I really do believe the small business owners are the ones that care enough to provide proper wages and benefits for their employees and they shouldn't have to suffer.

If it's not possible how about 

A- don't have kids you can't afford or

B- get training/education so you aren't min wage

I make more than most here. While in college 10 years ago I took a 4 week training program to be a nurses aide. After a month a made $13/hr and made more than my room mate who had a master's in social work

So if the real problem is the ultra rich and corporations, why have this argument if it doesn't fix the real problem

What min wage would actually need to be (not made up numbers)

http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/

Edited May 21, 201510 yr by justapilgrim

So if the real problem is the ultra rich and corporations, why have this argument if it doesn't fix the real problem

​Nobody's arguing... I think the debate has been quite civil.

Unfortunately, the ultra rich and corporations are also the ones who do the hardest lobbying. They couldn't give a crap if small businesses get squeezed out. And politicians pander to the public to get their vote. IMO simply raising the minimum wage to provide what seems like a "living wage" without fixing some other problems will, in the end, fail.

A- don't have kids you can't afford or

B- get training/education so you aren't min wage

I think I answered that above - people in poverty get stuck in this cycle. They become parents too young, go to jail or join a gang... they don't get a good education or job training as a result. Their kids are poor and fall into the same "trap" ... the cycle continues. Proponents of "living wages" along with the proper support programs want to break that cycle. If you could reduce poverty by 5% a year by yanking people out with good wages and good jobs, I really do believe it would become self sustaining and eventually make a real difference.

(Yes, I have a very strong opinion about this stuff :))