Raising Min Wage

[steppinthrax]

I tend to be pretty liberal yet this is one topic that I don't side with much of my liberal friends. I think partly because I've went to college and work in salaried positions. I never looked at my job at Office Depot or at Food Lion (Grocery Store) as a perm job or a job that you can seriously consider viable enough to buy a nice house, car, kids though college etc...

In my view Wage Jobs should be for those with no exp and really no resume that need something very entry level. There should be some understanding that this is temp or a stepping stone to move onto another area within the company (i.e. cashier -> head cashier -> supervisor -> Manager -> Store Manager) or until they get a degree. Why do people feel they should be able to do "all those things" (house, car etc) with a Walmart Cashier job? Then I feel companies seem to abuse the system, knowing they pay a very low wage that will be eventually subsidized with welfare or gov benefits. Just my thoughts, curious on what others thing.

 

[steppinthrax]

Forgot to add...

I feel if companies were legally required to raise min wage they would simply change their behavior by it and it would either affect the workers directly and or the customers. I think either companies would (1). Reduce staff (2) increase the product/service cost (3) increase automation to reduce staff (4) find some legal loophole to not pay the increase.

 

[Jaskalas]

My thoughts are people need to be able to find work that covers the cost of living. Their expenses.

If they cannot work to cover those costs... something is terribly wrong economically. It is a problem for them, and in exchange a problem for us. We're going to subsidize the difference between their income and their costs, one way or another. Either through economic loss as they're too impoverished to purchase everything they otherwise would, or as handouts or mandates like welfare, increased min wage, or even basic income.

There's a societal cost to people being impoverished and unable to purchase goods.
The objective of our policy should be to raise them ALL up to a suitable level to attain economic and financial liquidity.
To keep the economy flowing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The usual counter-point to this would be: should a person's working time really be not enough to feed, clothe them, and put a roof over their head? Most of us strive for a particular standard of living, above which is generally considered frosting on the cake. If wages earned don't meet that, it's usually a problem for that person. That can be rectified by improving oneself, working more jobs, or striving for a handout (which could be classified as a sub-category of improving oneself or working more jobs).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Oh, and for the record, I think raising min wage is a terrible idea WRT improving standard of living for lower income brackets. Reminds me of the .... Simpsons episode? Maybe Futurama? Where everyone gets a hundred dollars, so everything costs a hundred dollars.

 

[steppinthrax]

But the feeling I get is people think every single job (no matter how unskilled) need to cover those cost. They are not factoring in the fact that skills have a spectrum of commercial value. They don't take the personal liability that if they don't "skill up" they will have difficulty trying to make end-meet with a min-wage job.

I'm not so sure that I agree that every single job needs to pay a wage that allows people to live. There needs to be some sort of "fire" that a person needs to feel that motivates them to "climb the ladder".

 

[steppinthrax]

I think that is what makes us a capitalistic society. There are winners and losers. If you force companies to pay such high wages, then there will be a reduction in motivation.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yeah usually that fire is to get some measure of luxury in their life, provide for kids to have a better life than you did, etc. It's the 'Movin On Up' of the 70's or whatever. The fire should not be abject poverty/homelessness/ramen forever. Plus, it's really easy to make these statements and judgments as someone who is secure in their salaried job. The 'system' is working/has worked for you.

 

[TheGardener]

There shouldn't be a minimum wage. Once you gain experience, you'd say goodbye to the employer. If the employer want to keep you, they can pay more. As to why it is popular, it comes down to politics.

 

[steppinthrax]

Yeah usually that fire is to get some measure of luxury in their life, provide for kids to have a better life than you did, etc. It's the 'Movin On Up' of the 70's or whatever. The fire should not be abject poverty/homelessness/ramen forever. Plus, it's really easy to make these statements and judgments as someone who is secure in their salaried job. The 'system' is working/has worked for you.

I didn't grow up in an ideal situation. I'm not going to go into detail but from a statistical perspective I could have easily fallen into an area of "impossibility".

 

[steppinthrax]

There shouldn't be a minimum wage. Once you gain experience, you'd say goodbye to the employer. If the employer want to keep you, they can pay more. As to why it is popular, it comes down to politics.

I agree

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Right, then you acknowledge that there was probably some point in your life where it could have gone terribly, shittacularly wrong. Like being pulled over/hassled by a cop on your way to that first interview that got you three steps forward instead of one, ending up slapped with some kind of bill/fine/whatever that jacked up a given 3-6-9 month financial plan you had. It's really, really easy to get left behind by 'the world' in our current economy/environment and it shouldn't be that fragile. Working should earn you a living wage, period. I'm not saying everyone should be able to do whatever they want and get paid for it, but if there's a half a million waitresses in america or whatever, there's obviously enough of a demand for that job to warrant actually paying them for it.

 

[steppinthrax]

Right, then you acknowledge that there was probably some point in your life where it could have gone terribly, shittacularly wrong. Like being pulled over/hassled by a cop on your way to that first interview that got you three steps forward instead of one, ending up slapped with some kind of bill/fine/whatever that jacked up a given 3-6-9 month financial plan you had. It's really, really easy to get left behind by 'the world' in our current economy/environment and it shouldn't be that fragile. Working should earn you a living wage, period. I'm not saying everyone should be able to do whatever they want and get paid for it, but if there's a half a million waitresses in america or whatever, there's obviously enough of a demand for that job to warrant actually paying them for it.

My parents weren't rich, we filed for bankruptcy multiple times and we eventually foreclosed. My parents moved around a lot and I had several social issues that were never address. My High School life is a whole other story, but in terms of College I had a very hard time socially and suffered from depression throughout college. I considered dropping out multiple times.

So It was not a "get pulled over once" situation.

However, I finished both my BS and went back for my MS. I used those degrees and skills to essentially prostitute myself into IT jobs and moved up-up-up the ladder.

I understand there are far worse than this, but I'm just giving you indication that It could have gone either way and I kind of feel. "If I can do it you can"....

 

[soulcougher73]

I think a lot of the argument for it is because our economy seems to be moving towards a service based economy. Meaning these entry level jobs as you call them are now just regular jobs. So in that sense they should pay enough to pay for a house, car, food etc. As our population grows and jobs become more scarce due to offshoring, automation etc. Something is going to have to give. Population up, jobs down. Not a good outlook for the future.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yep, and lots of people can do it (if they can do it... walking the IT path isn't for everyone). Doesn't mean everyone can, and doesn't mean that those who cannot should end up as gutter trash.

Maybe the answer is really a flat income from the govt or something. Minimum wage for living, or w/e. That makes its rounds quite often, but eventually something's gotta give. Either everyone's gonna have a job not worth paying for, or unemployed.

 

[senseamp]

I think we need to decide, do we want the employer to be responsible for paying enough for someone to live on, or do we want the government to be responsible for it through subsidies and welfare, or do we want people who work full time still unable to make ends meet and living destitute miserable lives, with corresponding effects on the economy and communities.
I am fine either way, but the people against minimum wage are often against big government too, which is basically wishful thinking that people are magically going to be "taken care of," or that only school kids work for minimum wage, etc. Be honest with yourself.

 

[Homerboy]

"Cost of living" and "enough to live on" is so subjective though.

You want to work at McDs? You can make that work for a "career" if you want. But your cost of living will need to be adjusted from what people think today. You won't likely be able to afford an xbox, or the large screen TV to play it on. Forget a car with insurance -- I suggest public transportation for you. Your clothing and food options would be more limited than somebody who has a college degree or a non-minimum wage job. Wife and kids probably out of the question, unless she is working too. It CAN be done, but you'd have to curtail what you can afford.

The problem is people want to work at McDs and think they are entitled to/deserve all the "extra" things in life. And it doesn't and can't work that way. People have worked shitty, low paying jobs for 100s of years and they survived. But they lived a different life than those with better paying jobs. Everyone buys into marketing and thinks they NEED everything they see. You don't. And you don't get it unless you work for/earn it.

 

[TheGardener]

Why does the government or any business owe a person a living? In our state the welfare is administrated by the Dept of Transitional Assistance. There is no transition. It's been decades since the state forced welfare recipients to go to job training or get a job. If you didn't, you were cut off after a period of time. That probably ended when they changed the department's name to Transitional Assistance.

If someone doesn't want to work, then fine, go figure out a way to survive. If they truly can't work, then fine the government should help out. But I don't believe for a minute that 50% of the people are disabled or can't work because they have some syndrome. People are taking advantage of a system that is badly flawed. But it is badly flawed by design. The more people that are living on the plantation, the more people that are going to keep the politicians in office who advocate easy welfare. If they were forced to work, they'd find out that they are better off for it, despite the reluctance to go to work.

 

[Jaskalas]

$15 minimum wage is just an attempt to close the gap between the value of labor today, and what it once was in the 1960s, early 1970s.
Those wages you want people to suffer through used to be "worth" a hell of a lot more.

 

[senseamp]

"Cost of living" and "enough to live on" is so subjective though.

You want to work at McDs? You can make that work for a "career" if you want. But your cost of living will need to be adjusted from what people think today. You won't likely be able to afford an xbox, or the large screen TV to play it on. Forget a car with insurance -- I suggest public transportation for you. Your clothing and food options would be more limited than somebody who has a college degree or a non-minimum wage job. Wife and kids probably out of the question, unless she is working too. It CAN be done, but you'd have to curtail what you can afford.

The problem is people want to work at McDs and think they are entitled to/deserve all the "extra" things in life. And it doesn't and can't work that way. People have worked shitty, low paying jobs for 100s of years and they survived. But they lived a different life than those with better paying jobs. Everyone buys into marketing and thinks they NEED everything they see. You don't. And you don't get it unless you work for/earn it.

Sure, we can reduce our consumption, forgo family creation and children, and go back to medieval standards of living for large sections of the population. Is that something we should be doing though, and is it sustainable in a democracy?

 

[CitizenKain]

There shouldn't be a minimum wage. Once you gain experience, you'd say goodbye to the employer. If the employer want to keep you, they can pay more. As to why it is popular, it comes down to politics.

Ahh, the words of a child, how adorable.

 

[glenn1]

Sure, we can reduce our consumption, forgo family creation and children, and go back to medieval standards of living for large sections of the population. Is that something we should be doing though, and is it sustainable in a democracy?

What's this "we" kemosabe"? Secondly, it's not a "large section of the population," an estimated 362k people above 25 receive minimum wage per BLS. http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

Third, yes there should be some folks whose actions mean they might need to forgo family creation and the rest. Minimum wage levels should build in tiers to incentivize behavior that will allow wage growth. For example, if you fvck off, drop out of school and smoke dope all day then you get medieval standard of living and a minimum ration of government cheese to allow your survival. Achieve your H.S. diploma or GED then your minimum wage goes up X. Demonstrate basic job skills like the ability to show up on time for work for a few months then your minimum wage goes up another X+1. And so on.

 

[Maxima1]

lmao Why do people always focus on the bottom? Why should a cop make more than twice the median income and get a six figure pension? Why a firefighter? Because that's how it is here in CA and several other states, despite the ridiculous amount of applicants they could choose from. I could go on about the effects of educational inflation and other things that make some workers earn arbitrarily more. The bottom needs a boost.

Minimum wage levels should build in tiers to incentivize behavior that will allow wage growth. For example, if you fvck off, drop out of school and smoke dope all day then you get medieval standard of living and a minimum ration of government cheese to allow your survival. Achieve your H.S. diploma or GED then your minimum wage goes up X. Demonstrate basic job skills like the ability to show up on time for work for a few months then your minimum wage goes up another X+1. And so on.

They're service jobs, and we have access to high skilled foreigners. There's a reason why it hasn't mattered that the US has lagged behind on education attainment. Your concern is over nothing. In fact, we could use an axe on some parts of the economy (reform on taxation, for example), and it would free up a lot of intelligent human capital (e.g. tax accountants) that would completely mitigate any detrimental effects from low IQ people performing worse at their service job. The horror! He bagged the groceries a little slower! No, I'd rather raise the minimum wage to get rid of ZMP jobs!

A boost at the bottom won't cause human capital allocation inefficiencies. High paying government jobs are more likely to do that, since a high IQ person isn't going to settle for bottom tier. A lot of STEM grads go to other areas that pay more, since there's a lot of pressures that keep STEM pay lower than what it would be.

Moreover, capitalism runs on sales. An economy that isn't directed by loony gold bugs will perform better because companies will be able to sell to the masses and hire more engineers and do R&D, etc. A country of loony gold bugs will "save" and then find out the economy is **** because no one is buying goods and services. It's called the paradox of thrift.

 

[rudder]

The federal minimum wage should stay $7.25. This issue should go to local municipalities and states. $15/hour might work in Seattle but it won't work very well in rural Tennessee.

Plenty of states and cities have set their own minimum wage. There is absolutely no reason for the Federal government to be involved other than saying it is $7.25/hour.

 

[Sonikku]

There isn't any reason to ever raise the minimum wage so long as rent/utilities/food costs/insurance etc. remain flat year on year forever.