Perhaps, but I don’t believe you’ve defended why it should be the way the world works, or to what extent we should allow it to be the way the world works (unless you advocate being able to punch or shoot your way to anything you want).
Not if you are a believing Catholic, shame we don’t hear many Catholics embracing these teachings today. I wonder why conservative religious folks like our redoubtable Bricker do not promote the social teachings of the church when it comes to labor and wages. Hell, Rerum Novarum even supports unions.
Rerum Novarum
Part of this issue is the idea that business owners or shareholder think that they are entitled to a certain number regardless of economic conditions. That is simply not true. If the market dictates the price of the widget, then your profit margin is determined by your ability to drive sales and limit costs. All this is basic, but there is no reason why the human cost should be considered a resource like the power bill. It is because that businesses as an entity act in a sociopathic manner that we are forced to create laws like minimum wage standards and OSHA rules. If we didn’t they would quite happily maximize profit at the expense of anything else until it became unprofitable to do so. The we would be back to work houses and burning rivers. To get back to my point though, if you made 200% on your widgets and netted a couple million when thing were good, your shareholders have no objective right to expect the same pay off when things are in the shitter. They have no “lost money”, nor does anyone need to “pay for that”. The business was less profitable this year and everyone suffers. That is how it works in small businesses. Corporations have managed to insulate themselves from the market, and are determined to please the higher ups at any cost, which is driving unliveable wages and abuse of immigrant labor.
Then why aren’t almost all non-union employees earning minimum wage?
Regards,
Shodan
One thing I think might help would be to localize the minimum wage; $7.25/hr. goes a lot farther in Arkansas than in New York. The govt. does this sort of thing with per diem rates, and it seems like it could be done for wages, as well.
It is already done that way. Some states have MWs higher than the federal MW.
As for the OP, yes it’s reasonable for an employee to expect a “living wage”. And so it is incumbent on the employee to make sure he has skills that are worth a “living wage”.
So you advocate going back to the law of the jungle?
I think you have a distorted view of even that. There is, for example, archaeological evidence that bands of humans cared for injured and handicapped individuals who were able to contribute very little, if anything, to the survival of the band.
Right; I know that some states and localities have that, but I think I’d rather see it done at the federal level in order to help avoid it being a local political football for either side of the argument, whether it’s someplace like San Francisco, which would probably be more likely to institute a rate higher than is good for business, or someplace in the South making it too low in order to appease the red meat crowd.
I’d want it to be indexed to actual cost of living and other statistics and not politics, though obviously, some amount of politicking is unavoidable.
And if someone has the time and the resources to learn those skills, that’s great. I grew up in a blue collar family where my father had a union job and they were able to continue to feed and house me while I attended a state college on government guaranteed student loans which I’ve since payed back.
Notice the words “union job” and “state college” and “government”? Right now I make a good living running the IT department of a small but growing corporation. I don’t need a union because I have skills that aren’t a dime a dozen. But would I have gotten here without those guaranteed loans? Would I have gotten here without that state college? Would I have gotten here without my fathers union job? His father was a coal miner in Appalachia and my father grew up in poverty with no opportunity for an education beyond high school. Without that union the same may very well have been true for me.
That’s the point though John, a living wage should be the absolute minimum allowable wage for the lowest skilled workers. Below that you are unable to care for yourself and must use assistance. I think that most people would define a living wage as one that allows a person to support his or herself without other state assistance. So for most areas that would mean housing, utilities, and food for one. That doesn’t include niceties like private transportation, insurances, children, pets, dinners out, leisure, etc. Proponents of the living wage want a person to be able to support themselves on a single full time job. If a position requires skills that are below that level and cannot be phased out or automated, they should be filled by the mentally disabled or those otherwise needing state care or assistance.
Now the fed level is about three dollars short of that in most areas. at 10/hr 35-40 hrs a week most people could maintain a minimum level efficiency apt, pay their utilities, feed and clothe themselves. I don’t see that level of existence as having to merit a superiour skillset to achieve.
People who are able to care for themselves are less likely to commit crimes, use drugs, abuse the system, or otherwise cause trouble. They are far more likely to try to better themselves as they have the minimum abilities to do so. Those do not, can remain in an existence that at the minimum is providing them with all the necessities of life.
Not every worker can learn skills that will make him worth a good rate of pay. There are plenty of people who are under average intelligence.
There is a lot of work that needs to be done that does not require education or special skills. Does this board suggest they should work long and hard and make practically nothing. The company should pay them practically nothing and they should get government assistance? That is a WALMART system for all.
These people would be without heathcare, dental care, and opportunities to change their lives. Since they would be nonunion, the company could fire them at will. Then of course we would somehow have to work until 70 to get Social Security.
So, if my wife has a decent paying job that supports us reasonably well, I will be unable to go out and just earn some extra cash unless I have skills that rate a “living wage”? If I want to bag groceries at Safeway so we have some spending money, Safeway has to pay me $10/hour?
Here’s the thing. Entry level wages are just that-- entry level. If your goal in life is to be earning Min Wage when you’re 40 years old, I really don’t want to subsidize your lifestyle by paying you more than you’re worth. Get roomates, share a car, or do whatever when you’re young and unskilled so you can save money or do whatever you have to do to get some skills. You can clean houses where I live and make at least double the minimum wage as long as you’re smart enough to have your own business and not get suckered into working for someone else and having them pocket the management fee.
And others have already mentioned the fact that, like it or not, we are in a global economy, and the more you raise the price of your labor beyond what the economy tells you it is worth, the more you are going to be uncompetitive. That is the way of the world.
Is pushing a broom a low skill job suitable for the lowest pay scale? If not, what is, just so I have some standard of comparison?
If so, then I submit that although it shouldn’t be anyone’s goal to still be at that level after being a member of the work force for 20 years, it may very well be the actuality. As Acid Lamp suggests, self improvement in skills may be difficult or impossible to achieve when one is struggling to feed, clothe and house oneself at certain wage levels. And it may be impossible for some others merely because of intrinsic characteristics such as illiteracy or physical impairment. If wages are less than actual living costs, how are these people going to support themselves without public assistance even while they work full time? The poor are already sharing housing, riding public transit (if it exists) or sharing rides, and “doing whatever” to keep from living under a bridge. What more “whatever” can they do?
Really, this isn’t something that can be resolved merely by boot strapping. The circumstances of poverty, and its vicious cycle, are far too complex to be ameliorated by such simplistic methods.
Just as illness or injury to the uninsured forces care expenses to be externalized onto society at large, paying workers a non – living wage does the same. Societal costs are increased while corporate costs (wage levels) are decreased. Is that higher corporate profit of sufficient societal benefit as to negate or overcome the societal cost?
This is the argument for a “living wage”.
How do you make up for the difference between the amount that someone is paid, and the amount that they produce?
Joe Blow produces $10 an hour. Due to living wage legislation, he is paid $13 an hour. Where does the extra $3 an hour come from?
Regards,
Shodan
You don’t. You either eat it in your profit margin just like your rent and utilities or you find a way to phase out Joe. If his job can be done more efficiently by a machine or better software, invest in it. Productivity studies are pointless, how do you define what 10$ worth of work IS? If you are in physical production you could measure that out, but of course most modern production is done by machine. What is not performed by automation is either currently unable to be done, thus Joe is “worth” his wage regardless, or it is a less tangible type of “work”.
Let’s say Joe answers the phones. Your studies indicate that employees need to answer 10 an hour to be “productive”. If Joe answers six, but has a higher sales percentage than the other guys is he not earning his money? What does 10$ worth of design skills amount to physically? 10$ of retail associate service? The numbers are meaningless unless you are in a business that can directly connect A-work time to B physical production or dollars earned.
is the job inherently one which produces $10 / hour? If it can produce $20 / hour, and an employee can only do $10, the employee is not suited to the job. Living wage is not the same as lifetime employment. If the job is defined as producing only $10 an hour when the prevailing wage rate is $13, the employer needs to figure out how to redefine the job to be profitable, or else he will soon go out of business.
And when he does the latter, you’re totally cool with that? Joe wants $10 an hour, employer will pay $10 an hour, but if they won’t pay $13, Joe should stay home and get nothing.
Hero to the working man, eh?
As furt points out, this living wage thing isn’t panning out too well in terms of benefiting the poor working stiff. Instead of working for ten bucks an hour, now he doesn’t work at all.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
is the job inherently one which produces $10 / hour? If it can produce $20 / hour, and an employee can only do $10, the employee is not suited to the job.
[/QUOTE]
Same problem. If the living wage is pegged at $11 an hour, the employee isn’t suited to any job.
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It appears in this case, the road to unemployment used the same crew. And I bet they got paid more than minimum wage doing it.
Regards,
Shodan
Why stop at $10? You can’t live off that in NYC can you?
Oversimplification. Either a job is necessary or it is not. If it is not necessary that it be performed by a human, then companies should have every right to figure out a way to make themselves more profitable. I have nothing against efficiency or profits providing it does not result in negative consequences for society in general. If it is NOT necessary, and they don’t want to pay a living wage then they can phase out the job. There is only so much of that they can do before it affects their productivity though. Considering that most businesses are at the limits of what they can wring out of their employees I don’t see it causing massive lay offs. If a job is performed by a human, then that human should be paid a living wage.