Minimum wage discussion

[SMOGZINN]

On the pro-increased minimum wage side, a job is thought of a means of making a living from the perspective of the employee. The person requires this amount to live so the job should pay at least that.

On the anti-increased minimum wage side, a job is thought of a means of employing someone to do a job (set of tasks). The job requires this amount of skill and should pay this much.

Thinking of them separately I can absolutely understand the arguments for each of them.

I can see both sides, but after thinking about the problem for literally years I have come to the conclusion that the only reason for work, for corporations, for all these skills, at all is to provide for people. If we are not meeting this basic requirement for the majority of people then we need to tear it all down and try something different. Minimum wage is an attempt to keep us from falling into that trap, because each individual (or individual company) is only looking out for itself with no view on the bigger picture. It wants to pay as little as possible, and with the type of leverage that huge megacorps have over the labor market, they can push pay right into the ground. If left unchecked then society as a whole will fail. There is simply no market force that can counter that.
Those that know their history will know that we already tried that and if failed spectacularly.

 

[cabri]

I can see both sides, but after thinking about the problem for literally years I have come to the conclusion that the only reason for work, for corporations, for all these skills, at all is to provide for people. If we are not meeting this basic requirement for the majority of people then we need to tear it all down and try something different. Minimum wage is an attempt to keep us from falling into that trap, because each individual (or individual company) is only looking out for itself with no view on the bigger picture. It wants to pay as little as possible, and with the type of leverage that huge megacorps have over the labor market, they can push pay right into the ground. If left unchecked then society as a whole will fail. There is simply no market force that can counter that.
Those that know their history will know that we already tried that and if failed spectacularly.

If a person is forced into a job; then what you are stating is valid.

as long as a person can walk away or get training for a different work or better slot; it does not apply.

A company should not have the obligation to provide a job for a person; They have an obligation to ensure that if a person has a job, then the job can be done properly.

Optional then is for a person to then advance themselves and show their value to the company.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If a person is forced into a job; then what you are stating is valid.

as long as a person can walk away or get training for a different work or better slot; it does not apply.

Once again, if we all became engineers and doctors, then engineers and doctors would be paid minimum wage. More than a quarter of all workers in the US earn less than $10.55 an hour, and that number is growing rapidly. Do you really think that people want to make minimum wage?

A company should not have the obligation to provide a job for a person; They have an obligation to ensure that if a person has a job, then the job can be done properly.

It is not societies job to ensure that companies make a profit either. Companies exist to serve the society, not the other way around. If they are not going to ensure the health of that society, then society is in it's right to force them to.

 

[Dessicant]

Once again, if we all became engineers and doctors, then engineers and doctors would be paid minimum wage. More than a quarter of all workers in the US earn less than $10.55 an hour, and that number is growing rapidly. Do you really think that people want to make minimum wage?


It is not societies job to ensure that companies make a profit either. Companies exist to serve the society, not the other way around. If they are not going to ensure the health of that society, then society is in it's right to force them to.

NOTHING AND NO ONE exists to serve society. Society is a collection of individuals, not a master of slaves. We are not born into duty or obligation. A company has ZERO ZILCH NADA "responsibility" to provide for or care for or nurture or act in loco parentis for any employee.

Employers need a job done, they offer it and whatever rate of pay is appropriate based on the free market. If free people answer the call, the job is filled and that is that. If no one answers the call, then the pay must be raised until someone freely consents to do the job. At that point, both parties are acting freely for mutual benefit.

Corporations do not, and should not, pay anyone anything other than what the market determines is the correct pay. Individuals should not work for anything less than they are willing to accept. However, if you are mediocre and common, you can expect a harder life and a meager life compared to someone with drive and talent. That is fair, just, and morally correct.

No one has a right to demand enough money to live comfortably if they are not of sufficient value to warrant that amount of money.

A comfortable and happy life is not guaranteed and should not be demanded. It is something you fight for by making yourself valuable. A human with no skills and no desire to get better IS NOT VALUABLE and NOT ENTITLED to any particular standard of living.

You ARE what you DO, and your value lies in what value you bring to others seeking skills and drive in trade for money.

You have no intrinsic value or virtue by simply existing. You are entitled to NOTHING by virtue of existing.

This all comes down to ethics and morality in the final analysis. It can never be correct for someone to demand a standard of living from others by using political power and the threat of government violence to force others to hand over what you think you need.

The minimum wage is a form of theft. You just need to get rid of the altruistic window dressing designed to hide its true nature.

 

[kranky]

Late to the thread but one factor I think is very relevant to the minimum wage discussion is the ridiculous difficulty in starting one's own business. The legal and regulatory roadblocks are huge. This is an opportunity that used to be relatively attainable for low-skilled workers. Today people don't even consider it because of what they have to do just to get the thing started.

Even if you use a legalzoom to become incorporated, that is only the beginning. Permits, all kinds of insurance, heck you need a license here to cut hair (but not give tattoos!). A local story not long ago recounted someone who still couldn't open their business six months after starting the process for permits and approvals.

Some might say these roadblocks are not really accidental, nor necessary to protect the public. They are there to stifle newcomers so the entrenched businesses don't have to deal with more competition.

Many places talk about "business incubators" where fledgling startups can get cheap space and be around other similar companies. They should do that for carpenters, plumbers, mechanics, and every other type of business that someone might be willing and able to start on their own without having a college degree. Have the regulatory people right there also to get that crap out of the way fast. Make consultants available to help with the typical problems a new business faces. If someone can make a go of their own business, they might very well make more than minimum wage and won't be dependent on someone else's business for their livelihood. They might even be able to hire others.

 

[Ns1]

More anecdotal examples abound, $15 minimum wage is great...if you can get a job. Here's a pretty interesting opinion piece and it's potential impact to non-profits:

...
These days, Homeboy staffers have been making their way up to City Hall's third floor, where council members have been debating a plan to hike the hourly minimum wage to $15 by 2020. That's because Homeboy executives fear the wage increase, which comes up for a full council vote Wednesday, will force them to scale back the number of people they employ.

Homeboy has spent months seeking relief from the law, but only for clients in its so-called transitional jobs training program. Without an exemption, the nonprofit will need to eliminate 60 of its 170 trainee positions by the time the wage reaches $15, said Jose Osuna, the group's director of employment services.

...

Homeboy is only one group seeking the extra help. Chrysalis, which focuses heavily on helping the homeless re-enter the workforce, also wants an exemption. So does the L.A. Conservation Corps, which provides transitional jobs for young adults, particularly those who have struggled in school or had run-ins with the law.

Executives with the corps warn the $15 wage could force them to cut the number of transitional job participants by as much as half, from 400 people to 200. On Friday, workers with the corps told council members their employer had helped them reach critical milestones: earning a diploma, getting a driver's license, learning how to raise a family.

"They helped me be a better parent," said Estefany Mendez, 20, of Echo Park. "They are like my whole family."

At Homeboy, trainees progress from janitorial work to clerical duties to posts in the nonprofit's various businesses, such as the cafe, bakery or silk screening shop, Osuna said. Though they tackle those jobs, they also receive counseling in an array of areas: parenting, substance abuse, anger management, domestic violence.

Miguel Lugo, 36, said those services helped him adjust after years in prison.

"I never knew how hard society was going to be," said Lugo, fighting back tears as he addressed the council. "I never knew how to pay a bill. I never knew how to fill out a job application."

Mark Loranger, president and chief executive of Chrysalis, said he ran the numbers on the proposed wage hike and concluded the increases would add $2 million to its costs by 2018. He said he would not be able to raise enough extra money from donors or other sources to cover the entire expense.

"Any way you slice it, it's a very substantial financial hit," he added.

Chrysalis helped more than 500 clients, many of whom had been out of the workforce for years, find transitional jobs in 2014. The average age of a trainee is 42, Loranger said.
...
For Cedillo, the exemption is about giving a second chance to some of the most challenging cases in society: the chronically homeless, former convicts and at-risk youth. "We're integrating people into the workforce, and we're making them better human beings," he said. "How do we put a cost on something like that?"

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-minimum-wage-jobs-20150601-story.html#page=1

 

[Rebel_L]

More anecdotal examples abound, $15 minimum wage is great...if you can get a job. Here's a pretty interesting opinion piece and it's potential impact to non-profits:




http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-minimum-wage-jobs-20150601-story.html#page=1

I would think that there are many ways to get around a minimum wage law if the employees are wanting to work for less. I would think at a registered charity/non profit they could even pass along a potential donation benefit to employees (assuming they are working enough to have the income to pay any income tax to begin with anyways).

 

[Ns1]

^^

Not really unless they're all 1099's

 

[Rebel_L]

^^

Not really unless they're all 1099's

I don't know much about US tax laws, but I would think that any place that can write a charitable donation receipt can pay what they like and write a donation receipt for the rest to $15 and hour, assuming you can get the employee to agree to be ok with this. All the non profits I've ever been involved with have been able to write receipts for tax purposes.

 

[Ns1]

I don't know much about US tax laws...

Well that's a source I'd trust for sure.

 

[Rebel_L]

Well that's a source I'd trust for sure.

Apparently you missed the entire point, if someone wants to work for less its easy enough to make it happen. If they don't, the exemption will not do much for you in a market where everyone else pays more.

That some people who would be wiling to work for less may or may not get a government subsidized partial wage increase out of the deal is really not important.

 

[Ns1]

There are really not that many ways to legally make it happen in the states. 1099 is one. Asking them to work for free and then kicking them back some money is not one. And no that is not a charitable deduction on the non profits tax return.

 

[Rebel_L]

There are really not that many ways to legally make it happen in the states. 1099 is one. Asking them to work for free and then kicking them back some money is not one. And no that is not a charitable deduction on the non profits tax return.

I could work as a volunteer for some hours and staff as other hours, I could buy a service/item from my employer at overinflated prices, I could simply report that I worked less hours than I did, I could be salaried with no compensation for extra hours worked, I could arrange a payout schedule on a task basis (think flyer deliveries), if my company has a system for accepting donations I can simply donate money to the good cause that is my company. If they are grey areas or flat out illegal it only matters if I am unhappy with the arrangement and do something about it (there are tons of employers that get away with taking advantage of their employees because they don't know the employer is not following laws). The exemption would make it more hassle free, but in the end if you are paying lower wages than everyone else you will have significantly higher worker turnover, fewer, and poorer quality applicants which could easily cost you more than you get back from paying lower wages.

If your business model is already relying on the goodwill of others, either succeed or fail based on that. Exceptions tend to add loopholes to systems making them exploitable and unnecessarily complicated which never serves the group as a whole in the long run, only those that are doing the exploiting. The surest way to make a new way of doing things fail is to not actually follow the new way of doing things thereby not actually giving it a chance to work.... Anyways it just feels like I'm ranting now so I am going to stop.

 

[flexy]

A company has ZERO ZILCH NADA "responsibility" to provide for or care for or nurture or act in loco parentis for any employee.

Employers need a job done, they offer it and whatever rate of pay is appropriate based on the free market. If free people answer the call, the job is filled and that is that. If no one answers the call, then the pay must be raised until someone freely consents to do the job. At that point, both parties are acting freely for mutual benefit.

Corporations do not, and should not, pay anyone anything other than what the market determines is the correct pay.

[...]

A comfortable and happy life is not guaranteed and should not be demanded. It is something you fight for by making yourself valuable.

Why would you stand-in that corporates get all those rights but employees none? It is, after-all, employees who make a company work. Without their employees, a company is NOTHING.

There is nothing wrong if a company also has the "responsibility" to pay for things such as medical care, vacations, sick days etc. for their employees as is the case in most other civilized nations.

If a company hires me, it means I am dedicating the biggest part of my life to the company, some people literally their entire life. I can therefore expect that by getting hired on by a company and entering such a responsibility, the company is also the entity which "cares" for my health by covering insurance etc. respective that my pay is sufficient to be able to cover this on my own FROM MY PAY. (From what else?)

"appropriate pay" "what the market determines"

We live in capitalism, in some countries more, in some less..but the principle is the same: Corporates/businesses work for profit, they are no welfare organizations. An employer would (if they could) pay as little as possible "to get a job done", and of course they would not want to pay benefits or whatever. But it is the company which literally "profits" from the employees. It is just fair when some part of this profit also flows towards the employees to enable them "a comfortable and happy life" (aka: that they can live, pay rent and a doctor, I am talking essentials here and not luxuries)

I disagree with the "skill based" pay entirely, by the way.

It is correct that, say, burger flipping is what people would see as "non-skilled" labour and you'd think it's fair to pay someone working at McD minimum wage. But seen from a different point of view, without flipped burgers and people working in fast food, McD couldn't sell off their burgers. Have those guys stop flipping and McD would be bankrupt next week. (Whether the flipping requires "skill" is here not even relevant, IMHO, it's how much a person's work benefits a company).

 

[Ns1]

I could work as a volunteer for some hours and staff as other hours, I could buy a service/item from my employer at overinflated prices, I could simply report that I worked less hours than I did, I could be salaried with no compensation for extra hours worked, I could arrange a payout schedule on a task basis (think flyer deliveries), if my company has a system for accepting donations I can simply donate money to the good cause that is my company. If they are grey areas or flat out illegal it only matters if I am unhappy with the arrangement and do something about it (there are tons of employers that get away with taking advantage of their employees because they don't know the employer is not following laws). The exemption would make it more hassle free, but in the end if you are paying lower wages than everyone else you will have significantly higher worker turnover, fewer, and poorer quality applicants which could easily cost you more than you get back from paying lower wages.

Yeah I'm pretty sure as a non-profit taking in money from supporters and/or government, the goal should be to stay above the law.

 

[Rustler]

Minimum wage is entry level for jobs for young adults that are starting out working, it is supposed to be used as a stepping stone to better jobs and or wages and or school. Not intended to raise a family on. But to each his own. I changed jobs a couple of years ago got a great hourly wage, but my experience in my field and how I sold myself, and my reputation, ie being known in the industry locally.

 

[piasabird]

I think wages have been flat for a while and I keep seeing prices increase at fast food places. What I see is rich people getting richer and squeezing the poor for every dime they can in taxes and they always want to raise the retirement age. So I say raise the minimum wage right now at the federal level. The banks got a bailout, and an interest rate of basically zero. I have not seen however one bank lower their interest rate on credit cards. I think we are giving banks too much and receiving nothing in return.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

NOTHING AND NO ONE exists to serve society. Society is a collection of individuals, not a master of slaves. We are not born into duty or obligation. A company has ZERO ZILCH NADA "responsibility" to provide for or care for or nurture or act in loco parentis for any employee.

Government's job is supposed to serve society. It is an entirely artificial construct designed to (for one) balance out the wildness of a completely free market.

Corporations do not, and should not, pay anyone anything other than what the market determines is the correct pay. Individuals should not work for anything less than they are willing to accept. However, if you are mediocre and common, you can expect a harder life and a meager life compared to someone with drive and talent. That is fair, just, and morally correct.

Why? The free market is not moral. It is not fair. It just is. If you want to guarantee fairness and morality, regulations need to step in.

No one has a right to demand enough money to live comfortably if they are not of sufficient value to warrant that amount of money.

A comfortable and happy life is not guaranteed and should not be demanded. It is something you fight for by making yourself valuable. A human with no skills and no desire to get better IS NOT VALUABLE and NOT ENTITLED to any particular standard of living.

You're arguing precisely for the immorality of the free market. Society isn't the wild where those unfit to survive are simply left to die. What about people who have no skills but are unable to get better? Or those who want to get better but are simply discriminated against? Oftentimes the desire may be there but the opportunities are not. Or the stresses of simply surviving day to day take precedence over the desire to get better and consume so much time that the person is effectively in a rut. We all learn in business school that when employees aren't able to accomplish things, think not of them as worthless but first examine if they are being given the right tools and opportunities to succeed.

You ARE what you DO, and your value lies in what value you bring to others seeking skills and drive in trade for money.

You have no intrinsic value or virtue by simply existing. You are entitled to NOTHING by virtue of existing.

This all comes down to ethics and morality in the final analysis. It can never be correct for someone to demand a standard of living from others by using political power and the threat of government violence to force others to hand over what you think you need.

I don't think you've made a very good moral argument here. Most people would argue that all human beings, by virtue of simply existing (provided you don't go around destroying things), do have innate value that the free market is all too eager to ignore.

The minimum wage is a form of theft. You just need to get rid of the altruistic window dressing designed to hide its true nature.

I promise you that if there were no minimum wage the biggest thieves would be those with the money and power. Minimum wage is not blind altruism. It's protection against those organizations who know they carry all of the bargaining chips.

 

[alcoholbob]

I think wages have been flat for a while and I keep seeing prices increase at fast food places. What I see is rich people getting richer and squeezing the poor for every dime they can in taxes and they always want to raise the retirement age. So I say raise the minimum wage right now at the federal level. The banks got a bailout, and an interest rate of basically zero. I have not seen however one bank lower their interest rate on credit cards. I think we are giving banks too much and receiving nothing in return.

Flat isn't quite accurate, you mean gradually declining? The US dollar has lost more than half of its value from inflation since 1999, whereas nominal wage rates are basically the same as they were back then, maybe even slightly lower. You can see the inflation reflected in prices. The same house in 1990 that was $250,000 or $300,000 is now over $1,000,000. Food prices are around ~2.5x times higher, healthcare and education have increased at an even faster pace.

As far as the discussion goes on minimum wage, it's been stagnant for a long time. Minimum wage was $1.25 in 1963 which would track to about $18.47/hour going by current silver prices. Of course, totally different time back then. 30% of the workforce was in manufacturing back then, and the largest employer in the country was GM, which was paying an inflation adjusted wage of over $50/hour. Today the biggest employer is Walmart at an average wage of around $12/hour with only 4% of the workforce in manufacturing.

Although the minimum wage to median wage gap is a little larger than it was back in 1963 as well. The median wage back than was 1.88 times the minimum wage, whereas the median wage today is about 2.25 times minimum wage. You could argue for a $8.69 minimum wage if you wanted by that metric.

 

[realibrad]

Once again, if we all became engineers and doctors, then engineers and doctors would be paid minimum wage. More than a quarter of all workers in the US earn less than $10.55 an hour, and that number is growing rapidly. Do you really think that people want to make minimum wage?

Can you show me where you got that figure?

The only place I have found it so far is from here.
http://nelp.3cdn.net/02b725e73dc24e0644_0im6bkno9.pdf

When I go to the link they provided to back up that number, it dead ends and I cannot verify the claim.

I see something similar used in a different link, but they changed the wording.

http://nelp.3cdn.net/24befb45b36b626a7a_v2m6iirxb.pdf

In 2011, more than one in four private sector jobs (26 percent) were low‐wage positions paying less than $10
per hour

Here they say private sector jobs not total jobs which is massively different once you consider that about 16+% of the workforce is employed by the government.

 

[Mai72]

This talk about minimum wage increases has gotten me a bit peeved.

Have anyone heard of Jim Rohn? He had an excellent quote in the 1980s concerning wages.

Develop the skills that will increase your value in the marketplace. This will in-turn increase the amount you are paid.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Can you show me where you got that figure?

I did a quick search for that number, so I'm willing to accept that number might not be accurate, but that number is not terribly wrong either. Even if we are talking about $12 an hour my point is still the same.

My argument is that salary is basicly a curve distribution, weighted heavily on the lower end. No matter how much education you give the public somewhere around a quarter of all people will still be at that minimum wage line. Telling people to get an education is not a fix for poverty.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Develop the skills that will increase your value in the marketplace. This will in-turn increase the amount you are paid.

Just as long as others don't do it as well.

 

[cabri]

I did a quick search for that number, so I'm willing to accept that number might not be accurate, but that number is not terribly wrong either. Even if we are talking about $12 an hour my point is still the same.

My argument is that salary is basicly a curve distribution, weighted heavily on the lower end. No matter how much education you give the public somewhere around a quarter of all people will still be at that minimum wage line. Telling people to get an education is not a fix for poverty.

As a group, they may not be true; for an individual, if they can get their educational level above normal, they have the opportunity to increase their skill level, which will being up their wage.

It is the first ones in that have the chance for the most gains

 

[Mai72]

Just as long as others don't do it as well.

Now you're talking from a scarcity mentality. This mentality goes there is only so much to go around, and I better get it before someone else does. IMO, that's a very negative mindset that can hinder your chances at success. Why not root for someone else's success knowing full well that if I worked just as hard I can also be successful as well.

IMO, the issue is most people go into a job with the attitude that they are only going to do little because they are making minimum wage. Most rarely ever go into a minimum wage job and give 110%. You should go into your job with the attitude WHAT AM I BECOMING, instead of WHAT AM I GETTING. That's the key.

Now, I just looked at upper management positions in McDonalds. Did you know that the average salary for a manager in McDonalds is $42k. Not a lot, but a hell of a lot better than $9 an hour. So, instead of bitching and moaning that they make only $9 an hour, why don't they go for a manager's position?

We are going to see an increase in automation much sooner than expected. When restaurants such as McDonalds are faced with paying someone to flip burgers $15 an hour they will automate most of the work, and fire 90% of their staff. Small businesses don't have the resources so most are most likely to go out of business. Maybe I'm wrong.