The REAL minimum wage

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm asking you a question that you don't want to answer.

As for your classes, ask your boss.

(isn't 12 hours or above fulltime so taking more hours doesn't cost you more money?)

I'm showing you what's wrong with your position rather than simply providing an answer you would disagree with.

And you once again missed the point. It's not that taking 18 hours costs more than 12 hours (it does somewhat, books and the like) but that taking 18 hours means less time available for work. Thus you need a higher hourly rate to make the same total money.

and?

 

[KeepTalking]

Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington require tipped workers to be payed the State MW before including tips.

Do these states adjust the minimum expected tip rate accordingly or are the waiters/ses double dipping?

No state has a "minimum expected tip rate", so your question makes no sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren

If I'm working part time I will need the higher wage all the more because I can't make more hours to make out the money I need.


This ain't deep and you ain't stupid

Just wrong, as usual.

The problem is that you think pay should be based on need.

So I should get paid more per hour because I'm taking 18 credit hours rather than 12 credit hours?

We need adequate diet in order to stay alive and healthy. We cannot sleep under bridges in order to work for a pittance., we need accommodation. Given market prices, this all costs a certain amount of money. The fact is we have needs, like it or not.

What is the point of working full time for a rate that does not even meet your basic need for food, accommodation, clothing, transport, etc?

It is simply not viable.

Just as a business that cannot meet its own running costs or generate a profit without expecting its employees to work for an unsustainable rate, is an unsustainable business.

You're not addressing my point.

The point I'm trying to make is: a pay rate that do not support the basic needs of food, clothing, accommodation, transport, for full time employees cannot be sustainable. Something has to give. Some may go into dept, some may turn to crime. Such a situation is not good for the employees on low incomes, or society at large.

You claim that business cannot afford to pay, and maybe a percentage of struggling companies cannot...but how many can? How many business owners, directors, managers, etc, take advantage of low incomes and simply take the profit while employees struggle to make ends meet?

That is the reason for MW laws, to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation.

And what you're missing is that not working full time is a far bigger issue in low incomes than the hourly rate. This may be due to worker protections making part time workers cheaper, it may be due to simply not having the time (a large number of minimum-wage workers are students.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

Loren

If I'm working part time I will need the higher wage all the more because I can't make more hours to make out the money I need.


This ain't deep and you ain't stupid

Just wrong, as usual.

The problem is that you think pay should be based on need.

So I should get paid more per hour because I'm taking 18 credit hours rather than 12 credit hours?

We need adequate diet in order to stay alive and healthy. We cannot sleep under bridges in order to work for a pittance., we need accommodation. Given market prices, this all costs a certain amount of money. The fact is we have needs, like it or not.

What is the point of working full time for a rate that does not even meet your basic need for food, accommodation, clothing, transport, etc?

It is simply not viable.

Just as a business that cannot meet its own running costs or generate a profit without expecting its employees to work for an unsustainable rate, is an unsustainable business.

You're not addressing my point.

The point I'm trying to make is: a pay rate that do not support the basic needs of food, clothing, accommodation, transport, for full time employees cannot be sustainable. Something has to give. Some may go into dept, some may turn to crime. Such a situation is not good for the employees on low incomes, or society at large.

You claim that business cannot afford to pay, and maybe a percentage of struggling companies cannot...but how many can? How many business owners, directors, managers, etc, take advantage of low incomes and simply take the profit while employees struggle to make ends meet?

That is the reason for MW laws, to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation.

Many of the minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be full time careers. They are meant as getting your foot in the door, getting some work experience, and getting some side pay. A babysitter's position is designed to be a career and neither is the life guard at the summer pool. But now we want those jobs to have to be paid for as a career.

You can have any job where a worker struggles to make ends meet, whether it's a min wage job or a 100K a year job. It's not the business role to get involved in how the person spends the money. They decide based on a multitude of factors and the potential employee decides if it's worth it.

 

[funinspace]

What kind of third world place do you live in? MW is $9.10 where I live, regardless if one gets tips in addition to wages...

Does that mean you don't have mandatory 15% minimum tipping? Although these days you hear more and more that you should tip at least 20%
The low minimum wage for tipped employees goes hand in hand with expectation of a high tip rate.

I’m not sure why this is confusing to you…Oregon MW is $9.10/hr, period; no ifs, ands or buts. There is no Oregon “mandatory 15% minimum tipping” requirement. Some restaurants will impose a 15% or 20% gratuity fee (aka tip) on large parties, but that is usually well posted. Tipping is part of the American social contract, us generally being social beings.

If a person is tipped, they get more income. It is kind of like I have an official hourly rate, though I only get paid for a 40 hour work week, regardless if I work 37 hours or 55 hours. If I get a bonus, or stock options, it is not like they reduce my hourly rate to compensate.

 

[funinspace]

Since some people seem to have missed this the first time around, I feel compelled to point it out once again.

To be fair, if the employee's tips, combined with this wage do not equal at least the MW, then the employer must make up the difference.

In other words, no tipped employees in the USA are working for just $2.19/hr, they all make at least the federal MW.

how well is that enforced?

One can only assume that, as a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is enforced as well as any other federally mandated wage/labor law.

Well, if the MW law is enforced as well as the H1-B visa program, then I would expect that in many depressed areas, that it is probably done pretty meagerly. I've seen 2 multinationals blatantly abuse the H1-B program to replace American workers with cheaper imports.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A mandatory tip isn't a tip. The idea of an expected tip is pretty silly too. Pay people a wage, and that is their wage. Set a price on the menu, and that is the price. Nothing more should be expected. Nor should an employer be allowed to take an employee's tips. Tips are supposed to be a little extra a customer may wish to give for a job well done. I don't see why this isn't obvious.

 

[DBT]

And what you're missing is that not working full time is a far bigger issue in low incomes than the hourly rate. This may be due to worker protections making part time workers cheaper, it may be due to simply not having the time (a large number of minimum-wage workers are students.)

That still doesn't change the fact that on such a low rate of pay a worker is not able to make ends meet, the most basic living, while working full time doing productive work. Nor does it change the fact that such a low rate is open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Our current MW rate is $16.37, and we have instances of employers facing court action for breaching MW requirement.

 

[DBT]

Many of the minimum wage jobs aren't designed to be full time careers. They are meant as getting your foot in the door, getting some work experience, and getting some side pay. A babysitter's position is designed to be a career and neither is the life guard at the summer pool. But now we want those jobs to have to be paid for as a career.

Whatever such a low rate may be 'designed for' it is still exploitation of cheap labour. There are probably many in the service sector, cleaners, etc, who cannot get ahead, that is their career and they are kept poor for life by their extremely poor working conditions and pay.

You can have any job where a worker struggles to make ends meet, whether it's a min wage job or a 100K a year job. It's not the business role to get involved in how the person spends the money. They decide based on a multitude of factors and the potential employee decides if it's worth it.

I'm sure they do, but if their wages are sufficient in terms of the Consumer Price index, which calculates the cost of living for singles or families, but they cannot make ends meet, it is a matter of personal management and not insufficient funds. In other words, it is their fault.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what you're missing is that not working full time is a far bigger issue in low incomes than the hourly rate. This may be due to worker protections making part time workers cheaper, it may be due to simply not having the time (a large number of minimum-wage workers are students.)

That still doesn't change the fact that on such a low rate of pay a worker is not able to make ends meet, the most basic living, while working full time doing productive work. Nor does it change the fact that such a low rate is open to exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Our current MW rate is $16.37, and we have instances of employers facing court action for breaching MW requirement.

1) The gap isn't nearly as big once you consider purchasing power parity.

2) You have a training wage system which provides most of the same benefits as the lower minimum wage.

 

[DBT]

1) The gap isn't nearly as big once you consider purchasing power parity.

Nevertheless, a gap there is. That is not to say our MW rate is satisfactory, it is also set too low. As I said, it should be at least $20ph as a bare minimum.

2) You have a training wage system which provides most of the same benefits as the lower minimum wage.

Training wages, apprenticeships and so on, are for a set period and increase with the experience and qualifications gained from training. As far as I know, many of those on MW in the US, cleaners and other menial workers, remain on their minimum pay rate for life, unless they somehow manage to pull themselves out of the poverty trap.

 

[ksen]

I would be in favor of a two-tiered MW system where we have a higher MW for adult workers and a lower MW for teen workers. I think Australia has a system like that.

 

[Celldweller]

I would be in favor of a two-tiered MW system where we have a higher MW for adult workers and a lower MW for teen workers. I think Australia has a system like that.

Starting at what ages?

 

[ksen]

You really can't work until your 16, although I suppose there are some exceptions, so I'd support a tiered MW with the lower tier being for ages 16-17 and the higher tier for 18+.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nevertheless, a gap there is. That is not to say our MW rate is satisfactory, it is also set too low. As I said, it should be at least $20ph as a bare minimum.

2) You have a training wage system which provides most of the same benefits as the lower minimum wage.

Training wages, apprenticeships and so on, are for a set period and increase with the experience and qualifications gained from training. As far as I know, many of those on MW in the US, cleaners and other menial workers, remain on their minimum pay rate for life, unless they somehow manage to pull themselves out of the poverty trap.

You're listening to leftist fantasy. The reality is that actual minimum wage workers are in the 1-2% range--that's mostly people starting out.

 

[ksen]

I wish you anti-MW folks would make up your minds. You say that MW earners are only a very small percentage of the workforce and then turnaround and say the economy will collapse if that miniscule subset of workers get a $2/hr raise.

 

[dismal]

I wish you anti-MW folks would make up your minds. You say that MW earners are only a very small percentage of the workforce and then turnaround and say the economy will collapse if that miniscule subset of workers get a $2/hr raise.

Yeah, no one says that second one. You must have imagined it.

 

[J842P]

I wish you anti-MW folks would make up your minds. You say that MW earners are only a very small percentage of the workforce and then turnaround and say the economy will collapse if that miniscule subset of workers get a $2/hr raise.

Actually, ksen, what they argue is that the workforce currently employed at the minimum wage would see a reduction in employment.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I wish you anti-MW folks would make up your minds. You say that MW earners are only a very small percentage of the workforce and then turnaround and say the economy will collapse if that miniscule subset of workers get a $2/hr raise.

Actually, ksen, what they argue is that the workforce currently employed at the minimum wage would see a reduction in employment.

which they can't prove because there are more costs than labor involved in business and in states that have a flat minimum wage, these same businesses are doing business and making money.

Plus, what is the argument that demands that customers should pay employees and not employers Pay employees?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wish you anti-MW folks would make up your minds. You say that MW earners are only a very small percentage of the workforce and then turnaround and say the economy will collapse if that miniscule subset of workers get a $2/hr raise.

Nobody's saying the economy will collapse. We are saying that raising it will leave a lot of them without a job at all.