Minimum Wage

[Bomb#20]

And Bomb totally missed my point about employers and how their refusal to pay a more substantial wage, causes their employees to become dependent on government programs to subsidize their wages. This is more like a subsidy for businesses, since the low wage offered is not enough to support an individual.

Excuse me? What the heck is with all the people who assume anyone who disagrees with them must not have understood them? I didn't miss your point. I got your point perfectly. I read your argument; I understood it; I recognized that it was wrong; and I pointed that out. If you think my counterargument was wrong, show where the analogy between employers and grocers breaks down, or else come right out and claim welfare is also a government subsidy to grocers.

And no, an employers' refusal to pay a more substantial wage does not cause her employee to become dependent on government programs. He's already dependent on government programs when she offers him a $10/hr job and he agrees to take it. When he then comes back and asks for $15 so he won't be dependent on the government any more, and she refuses, that does not time-travel into the past and retroactively cause him to become dependent on government programs. X cannot be the cause of Y if Y happened first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it fair that the youth today have a much harder time getting their first job, and the long-term positive work habits it engenders, than you? Is lifting the ladder from them an acceptable cost so the do-gooders can feel self-righteous?

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0720/Summer-jobs-for-teens-wane-even-as-research-finds-big-benefits

Exactly what I have been talking about.

Minimum wage jobs aren't a career unless you're a total loser, they're a step on the ladder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said earlier, most of you don't seem to have interacted closely with many poor people. The workers I know that make the minimum wage aren't all capable of doing anything but what some of you seem to refer to as an entry level jobs. There are many people who aren't smart enough, haven't had access to an education that teaches them the skills to obtain a higher paying job, etc.

Except where are they? 1% are in minimum wage jobs, starter jobs will add up to a good portion of those. That doesn't leave very many for careers.

- - - Updated - - -

Why was the minimum wage implemented to begin with? When you have a minimum wage period, the implicit stance you make is that we (The USA) have an interest in assuring wage equitability for people who work. The important thing is that WE decide what is and is not equitable.

The other problem is that by shifting the focus of people not having enough to one of employment and wage level, the unemployed are left out and forgotten. Minimum wage, mandatory employer paying of medical benefits, etc do nothing to help those truly the most in need, who fall through the cracks. This is why universal single payer health care and universal basic income are essential.

Yup. The real problem is the people who can't get into the labor force in the first place.

 

[none]

yeah really, there doesn't seem to be any argument that all businesses shouldn't be subsidized and low wage

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Minimum wage has certainly lagged behind inflation. Why did you get to 'start out' at a wage level that was 80 or 90% of a living wage, but today kids have to start out at 50-60% of a living wage? Why is that fair?

aa

Why is it fair that the youth today have a much harder time getting their first job, and the long-term positive work habits it engenders, than you? Is lifting the ladder from them an acceptable cost so the do-gooders can feel self-righteous?

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0720/Summer-jobs-for-teens-wane-even-as-research-finds-big-benefits

Can't say I'm an avid follower of the Christian Science Monitor, but it sound like you are also disputing the OP. That the minimum wage is not now nor has nothing to do with 'entry level' wages, but is more supportive of those who need a living wage to survive?

aa

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Why is it fair that the youth today have a much harder time getting their first job, and the long-term positive work habits it engenders, than you? Is lifting the ladder from them an acceptable cost so the do-gooders can feel self-righteous?

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2017/0720/Summer-jobs-for-teens-wane-even-as-research-finds-big-benefits

Exactly what I have been talking about.

Minimum wage jobs aren't a career unless you're a total loser, they're a step on the ladder.

YEAH!!! FUCK THOSE GUYS!!. I mean KIDS!!

aa

 

[DBT]

This doesn't paint a pretty picture of income distribution for a wealthy country.


''According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average household income was $73,298 in 2014, the latest year for which complete data is available. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. Depending on your family situation and where you live, average household income can vary dramatically''

Household Income (AGI) Percent of Households With Lower AGI

$2,000. 9%

$4,000 6.8%

$6,000 9.8%

$8,000 12.7%

$10,000 16.2%

$12,000 19.5%

$14,000 22.8%

$16,000 26%

$18,000 29.2%

$20,000 32.1%

$25,000 38.9%

$30,000 44.8%

$40,000 54.6%

$50,000 62.4%

$75,000 75.4%

$100,000 84%

$200,000 95.8%

$500,000 99.2%

$1,000,000 99.7%

$1,500,000 99.8%

$2,000,000 99.9%


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/10/30/

Big problem with this data: 3/4 of the difference disappears if you look at hours worked rather than household AGI. Everyone in the lowest quarter of this is there due to hours worked.

I don't think so, evidence please. And even if true to some small degree, we have many part time casual employees who want full time work but cannot get it, and not from lack of trying. The difference between the top and bottom is not a matter of hours worked, but pay rates. The fact is that those at the top do not work for a mere $10 - $20 - $30 dollars an hour....there are not enough hours in a day to earn six figure sums at these basic rates of pay.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Taking care of employees must take priority over serving selfish customers.

A single person can no longer support him/herself on the 7.25/hr. minimum wage without a bit of help from government programs which help with food and housing. If children are involved, that usually means Medicaid or CHIP as well. . . .

. . . it certainly needs to be raised incrementally to the point where an individual can support him/herself. . . .

Is it fair to have the government supplement employers by allowing them to pay people such a small amount of money that their employees end up being dependent on social programs supplied by government? . . .

Shouldn't they pay their employees enough money to keep them free from depending on government programs to help them survive? . . .

Perhaps if everyone interacted and knew many poor people, like I do, they would develop some understanding about how difficult it is to survive on the current minimum wage. . . .

And please spare me the garbage that they shouldn't have had children. The kids are here and unless we vastly improve access to family planning and education, poor women will keep having more children than they can afford. Some of these poor women are in their forties and fifties, so apparently minimum wage jobs are not just for entry level young people.

And therefore:

Employers must pay each worker however much that worker needs to support his/her family, including extended family.

So if one worker has no dependents, he would be paid maybe only $8 or $10 per hour.

But another worker doing the same job and having 10 dependents has to be paid $50 or more per hour, maybe even 10 times as much.

How can it be "fair" for worker #1 to be paid the same as worker #2, for the same job, if worker #1 has a much larger family than worker #2?

Since workers have to be paid according to their need to survive, then those with more mouths to feed must be paid that much higher, based on their greater need.

Sounds reasonable. Those greedy employers need to get their head out of their butt and pay the workers according to how large their families are, instead of selfishly caring only about serving their customers.

Also, forget all that crap about "Equal pay for equal work" --

This has to be replaced by "Equal pay for Equal family size" or "equal breeding rate"

 

[whichphilosophy]

The minimum wage was, in my understanding never meant to be a wage to raise a family on, at least not in my lifetime. I have worked a minimum wage job for 6 months in my life. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be an entry level job into the workforce, to a career.
A little history of me: I took classes my senior year In high school and stupidly took the first job offered as a lifeguard I was offered. Minimum wage at the time was about 3.2. I started work that summer at 6$ an hour. School started and my summer job was gone, but I found off season employment as lifeguard for about 5$ and hour. The only problem I had was hours were limited, so I found a second job, at minimum wage, then about 3.50$ an hour. That minimum wage job, at a movie theater raised my pay in 6 months to 3.75$ an hour. After 6 months the basic skills of working all positions were assumed to have been learned and so pay increased.
Those 6 months I worked at 3.50/hour are the only time I worked for minimum wage ever. That is what minimum wage is supposed to be: an entry level wage into the job market. Minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage, it is an entry level wage for the least skilled to enter the job market and learn the skills.
As an aside to the current 15$/hr minimum wage drive...this is going to kill above minimum wage jobs that are available to young but trained high school students and graduates. I worked for a city as a lifeguard, that city had the highest pay for lifeguards in the county aside from beaches. The current starting pay for a guard is 13$/ hr. Minimum wage in my state is currently 10.50$/ hr.
Minimum wage in my state is set to rise to 15$/ hr. This must drive up the pay for entry level lifeguards. Why? Lifeguards, even the 16 year old teaching your child to swim and the 16 year old sitting in the chair watching those lessons are professionals. They have mandated levels of training and certification which must be maintained, training which must be conducted during employment, legal requirements to provide aid and are by law first responders. It is an entry level opportunity to a professional career even if used as a step to another career, which is what most do.
A raise in the minimum wage, results in a necessary raise in the wage of these jobs. The city I worked for, like many others is dealing with budget shortfalls and staff reductions. Raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr requires raising the wages of everyone. To pay for that requires raising the price of the services provided, which really offsets the benefit of raising the minimum wage. Further raising the minimum wage will result in fewer 16year olds being hired to work in a job that can be their introduction into professional work.
This has been a ramble, sorry.

While the minimum wage is designed to protect workers who are the disadvantaged party with often no negotiating rights, increased efficiency is something competent employee managers should focus on.

Lidl a cut price grocery chain has entered the USA. It's often the cheapest in the UK but it pays its staff a little more than some of is competitors. I think it will be serious competition for Walmart yet pay its staff more.

In the UK a 16-18 year olds will sometimes be hired as an apprentice where rates are much lower than the minimum. The parents can get a reduction in income tax (by way of being paid tax credits).

 

[SimpleDon]

The minimum wage was, in my understanding never meant to be a wage to raise a family on, at least not in my lifetime. I have worked a minimum wage job for 6 months in my life. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be an entry level job into the workforce, to a career.
A little history of me: I took classes my senior year In high school and stupidly took the first job offered as a lifeguard I was offered. Minimum wage at the time was about 3.2. I started work that summer at 6$ an hour. School started and my summer job was gone, but I found off season employment as lifeguard for about 5$ and hour. The only problem I had was hours were limited, so I found a second job, at minimum wage, then about 3.50$ an hour. That minimum wage job, at a movie theater raised my pay in 6 months to 3.75$ an hour. After 6 months the basic skills of working all positions were assumed to have been learned and so pay increased.
Those 6 months I worked at 3.50/hour are the only time I worked for minimum wage ever. That is what minimum wage is supposed to be: an entry level wage into the job market. Minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage, it is an entry level wage for the least skilled to enter the job market and learn the skills.
As an aside to the current 15$/hr minimum wage drive...this is going to kill above minimum wage jobs that are available to young but trained high school students and graduates. I worked for a city as a lifeguard, that city had the highest pay for lifeguards in the county aside from beaches. The current starting pay for a guard is 13$/ hr. Minimum wage in my state is currently 10.50$/ hr.
Minimum wage in my state is set to rise to 15$/ hr. This must drive up the pay for entry level lifeguards. Why? Lifeguards, even the 16 year old teaching your child to swim and the 16 year old sitting in the chair watching those lessons are professionals. They have mandated levels of training and certification which must be maintained, training which must be conducted during employment, legal requirements to provide aid and are by law first responders. It is an entry level opportunity to a professional career even if used as a step to another career, which is what most do.
A raise in the minimum wage, results in a necessary raise in the wage of these jobs. The city I worked for, like many others is dealing with budget shortfalls and staff reductions. Raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr requires raising the wages of everyone. To pay for that requires raising the price of the services provided, which really offsets the benefit of raising the minimum wage. Further raising the minimum wage will result in fewer 16year olds being hired to work in a job that can be their introduction into professional work.
This has been a ramble, sorry.

The idea behind the minimum wage has to be that it is at least a living wage for a single person living in a city with a roommate. Most minimum wage laws allow for a reduced wage rate for a young person just starting out or in a training program, an intern or an apprentice.

Your complaint would be reasonable if minimum wage jobs were springboards for higher paying jobs, but they aren't. For millions of people all that they will ever earn is the minimum wage. Then to have a family means both parents having to have multiple jobs working 60 hours or more a week. Perversely this means that there is less pressure on employers to pay higher wages because there are more workers willing to work longer hours.

Conservatives talk endlessly about preserving the value of working for a living when they talk about welfare or disability payments. But when it comes to valuing work where it really counts for something, in the pay check, suddenly they don't value working for a living very highly at all. Some even suggest that our lower wage workers should work for the same wages that workers in third world, low wage countries get. This is ridiculous, low wage countries are also low costs of living countries.

The reason that we want to increase the minimum wage is to increase wage rates across the entire lower say 15% of the wage earners to increase wages and to decrease profits.

The minimum wage workers and the near minimum wage workers have been losing ground in their wages since the 1970's. Not only does this devalue the very idea of working for a living, it also reduces the economic growth for all of us, it makes for a less prosperous country. By and large, wages are spent in the economy and profits are saved, taking them out of the economy.

 

[ZiprHead]

The minimum wage was, in my understanding never meant to be a wage to raise a family on, at least not in my lifetime. I have worked a minimum wage job for 6 months in my life. Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be an entry level job into the workforce, to a career.
A little history of me: I took classes my senior year In high school and stupidly took the first job offered as a lifeguard I was offered. Minimum wage at the time was about 3.2. I started work that summer at 6$ an hour. School started and my summer job was gone, but I found off season employment as lifeguard for about 5$ and hour. The only problem I had was hours were limited, so I found a second job, at minimum wage, then about 3.50$ an hour. That minimum wage job, at a movie theater raised my pay in 6 months to 3.75$ an hour. After 6 months the basic skills of working all positions were assumed to have been learned and so pay increased.
Those 6 months I worked at 3.50/hour are the only time I worked for minimum wage ever. That is what minimum wage is supposed to be: an entry level wage into the job market. Minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage, it is an entry level wage for the least skilled to enter the job market and learn the skills.
As an aside to the current 15$/hr minimum wage drive...this is going to kill above minimum wage jobs that are available to young but trained high school students and graduates. I worked for a city as a lifeguard, that city had the highest pay for lifeguards in the county aside from beaches. The current starting pay for a guard is 13$/ hr. Minimum wage in my state is currently 10.50$/ hr.
Minimum wage in my state is set to rise to 15$/ hr. This must drive up the pay for entry level lifeguards. Why? Lifeguards, even the 16 year old teaching your child to swim and the 16 year old sitting in the chair watching those lessons are professionals. They have mandated levels of training and certification which must be maintained, training which must be conducted during employment, legal requirements to provide aid and are by law first responders. It is an entry level opportunity to a professional career even if used as a step to another career, which is what most do.
A raise in the minimum wage, results in a necessary raise in the wage of these jobs. The city I worked for, like many others is dealing with budget shortfalls and staff reductions. Raising the minimum wage to 15$/hr requires raising the wages of everyone. To pay for that requires raising the price of the services provided, which really offsets the benefit of raising the minimum wage. Further raising the minimum wage will result in fewer 16year olds being hired to work in a job that can be their introduction into professional work.
This has been a ramble, sorry.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

https://thebillfold.com/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage-a6d4cf3c7ab1

In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”
“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Big problem with this data: 3/4 of the difference disappears if you look at hours worked rather than household AGI. Everyone in the lowest quarter of this is there due to hours worked.

I don't think so, evidence please. And even if true to some small degree, we have many part time casual employees who want full time work but cannot get it, and not from lack of trying. The difference between the top and bottom is not a matter of hours worked, but pay rates. The fact is that those at the top do not work for a mere $10 - $20 - $30 dollars an hour....there are not enough hours in a day to earn six figure sums at these basic rates of pay.

Unfortunately, it was a dead-tree book that I don't have anymore. No way to look it up unless I figure out the title.

I do agree there are plenty of people that want full time work but aren't getting it--just how do you think a higher minimum wage will help them?!?!

And a 6-figure income is well above the average in this country. Raising everyone to that level is not possible other than by major inflation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your complaint would be reasonable if minimum wage jobs were springboards for higher paying jobs, but they aren't. For millions of people all that they will ever earn is the minimum wage. Then to have a family means both parents having to have multiple jobs working 60 hours or more a week. Perversely this means that there is less pressure on employers to pay higher wages because there are more workers willing to work longer hours.

Reality check: There aren't even millions of people working at minimum wage, let alone millions who are unable to progress.

The reason that we want to increase the minimum wage is to increase wage rates across the entire lower say 15% of the wage earners to increase wages and to decrease profits.

In other words, persecution rather than sane economics.

 

[Playball40]

Thank you. I was hoping someone would post this.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

https://thebillfold.com/it-was-always-supposed-to-be-a-living-wage-a6d4cf3c7ab1

In his 1933 address following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act, President Franklin D. Roosevelt noted that “no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”
“By ‘business’ I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of decent living,” he stated.

 

[DBT]

I don't think so, evidence please. And even if true to some small degree, we have many part time casual employees who want full time work but cannot get it, and not from lack of trying. The difference between the top and bottom is not a matter of hours worked, but pay rates. The fact is that those at the top do not work for a mere $10 - $20 - $30 dollars an hour....there are not enough hours in a day to earn six figure sums at these basic rates of pay.

Unfortunately, it was a dead-tree book that I don't have anymore. No way to look it up unless I figure out the title.

I do agree there are plenty of people that want full time work but aren't getting it--just how do you think a higher minimum wage will help them?!?!

And a 6-figure income is well above the average in this country. Raising everyone to that level is not possible other than by major inflation.

A higher rate of pay translates to more money in the pay packet at the end of the week, which is a help if you are struggling to make ends meet.

I didn't suggest the pay rate for ordinary workers should be raised to 6 figure levels. I'm simply pointing out that the difference between those on the bottom and those at the top has grown out of all proportion. Those at the top getting paid far too much for what they do (the ratio having increased in recent decades) with those on the bottom getting paid far too little.

Work on a fairer system of renumeration and a fairer society should have started decades ago, but the opposite happened.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How can it be "fair" for worker #1 to be paid the same as worker #2, for the same job, if worker #1 has a much larger family than worker #2?

Since workers have to be paid according to their need to survive, then those with more mouths to feed must be paid that much higher, based on their greater need.

Sounds reasonable. Those greedy employers need to get their head out of their butt and pay the workers according to how large their families are, instead of selfishly caring only about serving their customers.

Also, forget all that crap about "Equal pay for equal work" --

This has to be replaced by "Equal pay for Equal family size" or "equal breeding rate"

That is exactly where this logic leads. Well said.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A single person can no longer support him/herself on the 7.25/hr. minimum wage without a bit of help from government programs which help with food and housing. If children are involved, that usually means Medicaid or CHIP as well. . . .

. . . it certainly needs to be raised incrementally to the point where an individual can support him/herself. . . .

Is it fair to have the government supplement employers by allowing them to pay people such a small amount of money that their employees end up being dependent on social programs supplied by government? . . .

Shouldn't they pay their employees enough money to keep them free from depending on government programs to help them survive? . . .

Perhaps if everyone interacted and knew many poor people, like I do, they would develop some understanding about how difficult it is to survive on the current minimum wage. . . .

And please spare me the garbage that they shouldn't have had children. The kids are here and unless we vastly improve access to family planning and education, poor women will keep having more children than they can afford. Some of these poor women are in their forties and fifties, so apparently minimum wage jobs are not just for entry level young people.

And therefore:

Employers must pay each worker however much that worker needs to support his/her family, including extended family.

So if one worker has no dependents, he would be paid maybe only $8 or $10 per hour.

But another worker doing the same job and having 10 dependents has to be paid $50 or more per hour, maybe even 10 times as much.

How can it be "fair" for worker #1 to be paid the same as worker #2, for the same job, if worker #1 has a much larger family than worker #2?

Since workers have to be paid according to their need to survive, then those with more mouths to feed must be paid that much higher, based on their greater need.

Sounds reasonable. Those greedy employers need to get their head out of their butt and pay the workers according to how large their families are, instead of selfishly caring only about serving their customers.

Also, forget all that crap about "Equal pay for equal work" --

This has to be replaced by "Equal pay for Equal family size" or "equal breeding rate"

So workers should be paid for the amount of offspring they produce and not a fair exchange for goods and labour. More non-condomised sex means more pay rises. Would it be safe for husbands and wives to work in the same place?

 

[LordKiran]

And therefore:

Employers must pay each worker however much that worker needs to support his/her family, including extended family.

So if one worker has no dependents, he would be paid maybe only $8 or $10 per hour.

But another worker doing the same job and having 10 dependents has to be paid $50 or more per hour, maybe even 10 times as much.

How can it be "fair" for worker #1 to be paid the same as worker #2, for the same job, if worker #1 has a much larger family than worker #2?

Since workers have to be paid according to their need to survive, then those with more mouths to feed must be paid that much higher, based on their greater need.

Sounds reasonable. Those greedy employers need to get their head out of their butt and pay the workers according to how large their families are, instead of selfishly caring only about serving their customers.

Also, forget all that crap about "Equal pay for equal work" --

This has to be replaced by "Equal pay for Equal family size" or "equal breeding rate"

So workers should be paid for the amount of offspring they produce and not a fair exchange for goods and labour. More non-condomised sex means more pay rises. Would it be safe for husbands and wives to work in the same place?

No, minimum wage should be scaled to the average, with social safety nets there to fill the gaps for outliers.

Bottom line, these people are producing the next generation, which from the perspective of the state (An organization that exists to perpetuate itself) is a vital service. Even more so if you plan on restricting immigration.

 

[dismal]

Wait, if I buy a lemonade from a kid do I have to put them through college?

Because that would affect my decision.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Wait, if I buy a lemonade from a kid do I have to put them through college?

Because that would affect my decision.

Yep and that kid who swings the sign at Chick-Filet needs to afford a mansion because it's a job too.