Your country has it’s problems. My country has it’s problems. I think mine is better than yours and you think likewise. Lets leave it at that cease the chest thumping ok.
No chest thumping, just an honest look at the tradeoffs involved in having a higher or lower minimum wage.
I’ve never said Norway or Australia’s policies are “wrong”, only that there is no free lunch. We pay a price for a low minimum wage, and you pay a price for a higher minimum wage.
It all comes down to this. I think it’s worth it to make a little less as a doctor or engineer so that everyone working a full time job can afford to live. The socialist view.
But is it better to do that through wage policy or through the safety net? I say the safety met since the government can take into account family size and grant benefits accordingly. Businesses can not be expected to pay based on how many kids one has.
I’ll admit I skipped ahead. Has anyone answered the question about the “sweet spot”? Of course a wage of $100/hr would be beyond even the most progressive’s belief of a level of an appropriate minimum, and those same progressives agree that $7.25 isn’t enough.
Why $15? Why $10? Why $12.50? What economic or mathematical data supports the assertion that your proposed level is the best for workers and the economy?
I agree that social services need to be expanded, primarily Taiwan-style single-payer health care. But the robber barons in our country who are getting a free lunch won’t allow it.
I touched on it in the OP. As I said, I think I could live on $10/hour, which is 81¢ higher than the minimum wage here. I think classes at the community college cost around $500 to $600 per quarter, plus books and supplies. I don’t know anyone who goes to the technical college, so I don’t know how much it costs. Someone making $10/hour or less would be hard pressed to get the education and training required to get a better job, when $10/hour is only just enough to live on.
Of course it is. Your country is not an oligarchy yet, and it’s not infested with crazed libertarians and conservatives fighting every improvement in living standards for the poor tooth and nail. That really helps!
See, this is where libertarians and conservatives reveal that they are stark, staring mad. They think that everyone working in McDonald’s is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
That only touches upon what a worker would like to have. Does the economy support that? Can a business pay it? Even Joe’s Hardware Store who is taking a loss this year?
Of course the worker would like to pay for community college. The worker also wants cable tv, internet, a new car, a nice house, a hot tub, and servants to clean the hot tub. Where is good enough? What argument is to be made that a wage should be paid, not only for work done, but enough to save for community college to leave the shitty job? Should Joe’s Hardware have to pay his employees enough to leave him for greener pastures?
Of course your comments about hot tubs and servants are a straw man. Nobody is saying that those things are necessary, and nobody is saying that wages should be high enough for them.
As for college: Conservatives like to say, ‘Well, if they want higher pay, then they should get the education and training to get a better job!’ But how do they expect people to pay for that education and training, when they don’t make enough to live on as it is? It’s like going to the antebellum South and telling the slaves, ‘Well, if you don’t like your current situation, just save up enough to buy your freedom!’
The workers at Costco do pretty much the same job as the workers at Wal-Mart. Yet, the Costco workers make an average of more than $20/hour, plus health coverage and a pension plan. Research from MIT has found, and Costco has found, that well-aid workers are more productive and motivated. According to a professor of MIT’s Sloan School of Management, per-employee sales at Costco were nearly double per-employee sales at Costco’s direct competitor Sam’s Club.
Given the education and training, many employees might well ‘move to greener pastures’. But at the same time, they get to keep proven, productive employees. And educated employees are often likely to seek higher positions within the company, which is beneficial to the company.
yes but until recently there wasn’t a government incentive to businesses to cut hours to 30. This is double jeopardy for those who lost their good jobs and now struggle to find any work in time of high unemployment.
[QUOTE=monstro]
Society has made them wealthy.
[/QUOTE]
Then why doesn’t society just do to poor people what it did to wealthy ones to make them wealthy? Are you saying that rich people got rich because society increased the minimum wage?
Regards,
Shodan
Society provides better primary education for children of not-poor families. Society makes it easier for not-poor people to gain a higher education. Society ensures that not-poor people have better access to investment capital. Society ensures that not-poor people are healthier than poor people.
So, yeah. I’d like to see Society do for the poor what they have done for the not-poor.
When I say making it, I refer to middle class status.
Well, when they invent robot parents who can do a good job of parenting, then we’ll solve a lot of inequality. Until then, throwing money at education when the kids’ parents can’t even be bothered to care won’t do a lick of good.
Of course the servants and the hot tubs are a straw man. What about cable TV and internet? Are those necessities? Is community college a necessity?
Your data regarding Costco, if true, shows a free market reason to pay workers more without any type of government intervention. Costco doesn’t pay that wage because they have to, and other companies might very well look at that data and pay workers the same wages, lest they be put out of business for the lack of quality employees.
But you said $10 is the sweet spot because, in your opinion, that allows for necessities and savings for college. Do you have economic data that Joe’s Hardware can stay in business by paying $10? If it’s $10, will the cries against evil corporations stop? Will you next year ask for $11?
Then you should expect to be called on it.
Internet access is. From what I’ve heard, there are many jobs – even menial ones – that require applications to be made online; to say nothing about searching for jobs in the first place.
Once upon a time, a person could get a well-paying, lifetime job with only a high school diploma. In my line of work, your résumé is going straight into the trash bin if you don’t have a four-year degree. At least a two-year degree is essential to getting the foot in the door at many jobs.
Except that not everyone can work for Costco. People still need to be self-supporting. Or will you write your congressional representative and demand higher taxes so that services will be available for these people, in exchange for a minimum wage that is not liveable?
I said that I think I could live on $10/hour in a full-time job. Someone posted earlier that a single person needs just under that amount in this area. I would have no problem with a $10/hour minimum wage for full-time workers. I think that the minimum wage should be higher for part-time workers. Go back and read the thread, and you will see citations and comments from actual business owners that say the minimum wage has little effect on retail prices. By conservative logic, if Joe’s Hardware is doing so poorly that it cannot pay its workers a liveable wage, then they deserve to go out of business and someone else will open a hardware store that is run more efficiently.
And yes, next year I’ll ask for an $11/hour minimum wage if the cost of living goes up. Right now, the minimum wage is as low as it’s been (in terms of buying power) in 50 years.
This is what I don’t understand from the anti-minimum wagers. They bitch about minimum wage, and they also bitch about people taking money out of their pockets by being on public assistance. They also bitch about bad schools, crime-infested neighborhoods, and other Bad Things That Only Poor People Do.
They want to bitch and complain but they don’t want to pay the costs required to prevent these things.
On a basic level, it makes sense to distribute the costs of poverty across society, since society benefits when everyone is well-fed and housed. And we all benefit, indirectly or directly, from the low, low prices of Walmart et al. But what doesn’t make sense is vilifying people for supplementing their meager incomes with social welfare and simultaneously spitting in their face when they demand higher wages for their hard labor. You can do one of these things and maybe kinda-sorta still be a decent person. But doing both is 100% assholish. I hate to be all partisan and junk, but this attitude is much more pervasive on one side of the aisle versus the other.
That was true until the most recent set of increases, but the current level is at about the best it has been in 30+ years (but being eroded slightly every year there is no increase).
According to the chart someone linked to earlier, today’s minimum wage is worth $4.87 in 1996 constant dollars. In 1968, the minimum wage was worth $7.21 in 1996 constant dollars.
Bloomberg says:
The Center for Economic and Policy Research says:
Which is right there at about $10/hour I suggested for full-time jobs. It goes on to say:
So employers are getting much more value from their employees than they’re paying for.