Minimum wage

In My Humble Opinion
121

I hate to rain on a good meme, and I’m all for paying low-skill work at a decent wage, but that quote is not very accurate.

There’s really no such thing as “a minimum wage” in Australia. The closest equivalent is what they call an “award wage” - this is worked out on a union-by-union basis with the unions associated with various industries. If you’re low-skilled and you’re in an industry without a union, you’re screwed. But mostly the unions have a fair bit of clout.

Secondly, award wages are scaled based on age. Current rates for fast food workers are $9/hr for 16 year olds, rising to $18/hr for adults. So I guess it’s quite likely that about $16 is the average that fast food places actually pay. That isn’t what the pic actually says though.

Differentiated rates of pay for teens and adults comes with its own sets of problems. It’s the reason why I was refused a job once at Maccas for being “too old” … at seventeen :smack:

122

You are exactly right, except for the part about there being no other underlying force at work. The reason so many are so desperately harping on the notion that the economy will collapse if people at the bottom of the economic ladder get a living wage is the underlying force I was talking about in a previous post: their need to see themselves as superior to the “uneducated schlubs” who make minimum wage nowadays. They NEED that superiority with such sick intensity that they are willing to let the economy (and their own welfare, eventually) go to hell to keep it. (The suffering of the people not making a living wage is of course gravy to them.) They typically are not AWARE of the dominance/submission psychological elements that are driving their behavior and attitudes, and hence will not admit to them. (If they WERE aware of them, they could deal with them and hence might be more rational on topics like minimum wage and wealth inequality.)

Its a lot like racism: unacknowledged and unresponsive to rational arguments, and driving people to heap abuse on the unfavored group endlessly, in order to preserve the racists’ feeling that they are better than black people.

Corporate greed, which is as mindless as locusts and just as devastating to human beings, and this sick need to feel superior are the real drivers here, and should be addressed directly. The economic argument in favor of raising the minimum wage is really not at the core of things.

123

Here’s a McDonalds that requires a college degree: McDonald's Franchise Job Ad - Business Insider

124

Let me see if I understand you properly. You’re saying that there is no rational reason why someone should believe that a job that requires certain skills,experience or education should be paid more than a job that doesn’t? And there would be no rational reason for a person to conclude that it there’s no point in acquiring that education,experience or skill if they would be paid the same as someone who had not? It’s only because that person wants to feel superior?

125

McDonald’s type jobs are frequently trumped out in discussions like this. But what about home care-takers?

When a person believes the average fry-jockey is a teenager saving up for new rims, it is easy to say we shouldn’t pay him a whole of money. This is a ludicrous argument, but it doesn’t keep me up at night. I hear stupidity all the time, and this is just one more turd on the pile.

But what about the nice lady that cares for arthritic, demented, perpetually unhappy grandma? You know, the lady that does light cleaning around the house, cooks a few meals, helps her bathe and gets her dressed, does her shopping, doles out her meds, walks her yippy dog in the winter rain and in the summer heat, wipes grandma’s behind, wipes grandma’s behind, and then wipes grandma’s behind some more? And yet is too poor to buy a car and has to get around by city bus, which she has to take to the other side of town because she can’t afford rent on the “nice” side of town?

Will you pay this saintly woman the same wage that you pay Allison the Tenth Grader to babysit your kids? Apparently, believe it or not, a lot of people think she should get paid less.

I don’t know if it’s all about a superiority complex. I think a need to be “better than” justifies, in many people’s minds, why we shouldn’t weep too much for the minimally paid laborer. But I think greed is the ultimate explanation for why hard-working people, doing jobs no one wants to do, are paid so little.

We don’t know the true value of anything anymore. In a world where hamburgers are 99 cents and Kindles are $199, why wouldn’t we think the cost of keeping your demented behind clean and dry is similarly cheap? So I don’t blame us for being so greedy. We have been taught it is the American way.

126

Everyone is missing a glaring Truth to the issue of minimum wage … the Capitalists and their “rational economics” left-wing counterparts suggest “value” is up to the “marketplace” and the market will determine what wages must be paid; then there are the “relative difficulty/ skill/ intelligence” folks who think wages should reflect the complexity and talent requirements of a particular job … but all of that ignores the intrinsic value of “people”. If an adults work a full-time job, they are coping with survival, and as long as they are working full time, it’s in the best interests of Society that they are able to survive. I’ve read estimates, depending on specifics, regarding money spent on welfare in this country since the mid sixties, ranging from $9 to $22 trillion. Someone out here with better Google Fu, please chime in. It would be in the best interests of our nation if minimum wage jobs paid better than receiving welfare.

The Government steps into private business to insure civil rights are preserved, to protect the environment, insure public health and to prevent monopolies. Similarly, the Government needs to step in and make sure that workers get a wage that isn’t based on the profit expectations of a corporation, but rather the “life” expectations of an employee devoting full time in good faith to a job…

127

I don’t think she should get paid less than Allison,and in my state, she wouldn’t. But I’m not so sure that this example is based on exactly on greed. I figure that 12 hour a day/7 day a week homecare at minimum wage would cost about 40,000/year exclusive of payroll taxes - and that’s assuming Grandma can get through the other 12 hours without an attendant.Which is absolutely not more than the job is worth - but it’s more than most people can pay if they can’t get Medicaid coverage for one reason or another. I make a decent amount of money, but I couldn’t afford to pay $40,000 a year for my mother to have homecare.

I do think ,however, that the LPN/LVN who believes he should be paid more than the home attendant or companion is exhibiting neither greed nor a need to be “better than”.

128

I agree with you 100%, but I think it’s in society’s best interest that all laborers are able to do more than simply survive. Give someone a cardboard box and a bag of cereal and suddenly, for the price of a dollar, you’ve met their basic needs. But do we really want people surviving in such a meager fashion? No. So obviously “minimum wage” is more about survival.

We can’t complain about poor people and their problems and not be willing to make SOME changes. I don’t want to live in country full of poor people. Not because I’m a saint but because the issues facing poor people are fucking depressing. So as much as it pains me to pay more in taxes, I’m willing to do this to maintain a standard of level that is above “simply surviving”. People are experts at surviving. It’s living decently that is the challenge.

I don’t think a computer is a luxury anymore, so I think a family should be able to afford to buy one. In many areas, a car is also not a luxury. Fresh fruits and vegetables, dental coverage, vocational/occupational training…these may be luxuries in a third world country, but they are basics in any developed country. I don’t want to live in a country where your average, responsible, decent working person can’t afford these kinds of things. If my taxes have to pay for these things, so be it. But I’d much rather wages reflect these costs.

So I don’t know what the minimum wage should be. But I think if we want to pay more than just lip service to American values, we need to think about the standard of living we want to maintain as we move forward. Do we want to be like Mexico or do we want to be like Sweden? In one nation, the majority are thinking about survival. In the other, the people are thinking about living.

129

Are you saying that there are no options here?

Maybe having someone watch your mother at home is a luxury. A luxury, by definition, is expensive. And so is educating a child whose mother works 12 hours a day for less than minimum wage. It is also expensive maintaining the public transportation system that the family relies on because the mother can’t afford a car. The housing assistance program that bails the family out when rent can’t be paid is also quite costly. But education, transportation, and housing aren’t luxuries. Guess what is? Having a personal servant who is willing to wipe your behind.

I think the LPN/LVN should get paid what they are worth, just like the attendant should. If the CEO thinks everyone is equally valuable and pays everyone very well, why should the LPN/LVN be upset by the arrangement? A measure of worth should stand alone. I don’t get upset that the city bus driver makes more money than I do, even though his job doesn’t require years of advanced education like mine does. My worth has nothing to do with his. I chose my job because I like my job. Not because it’s “better than” driving a bus.

I guess if the LPN/LVN didn’t like being paid the same as the attendant, I would give them the same advice that people tell the attendant. “Go find a better job if you don’t like it.”

130

I know I’m late to the party, but I didn’t forget.

The difference is not that I think some people aren’t worth a living wage - the difference is that some jobs aren’t worth a living wage. If the only jobs you can or will do aren’t jobs that are worth a living wage, then you don’t deserve a living wage.

Simply put, the welfare of a citizen is not the responsibility of a corporation. And it’s a little horrific that you want a corporation to be the entity concerned with the wellbeing of a particular person. That’s the government’s role, and that’s why I support a negative income tax.

You seem to confuse the commonality of a job with it’s worth. Sure, everyone likes to eat out sometimes. Everyone needs to get their lawn mowed sometimes. Everyone needs to go to the doctor sometimes. But, not all of those ‘needs’ are worth the same. Cutting the lawn is not worth $100. Going to the doctor is. Merely having a job that is common does not mean it’s worth more.

You also confuse pleasantness of a task with the worth of a task. Is being a food service worker less pleasant than being an office worker? Yes. Does that mean the food service job should pay more? No.

You end with a question: “What exactly have they done to deserve it?” The answer is: nothing. They haven’t done anything to deserve suddenly being paid more. If they had done something to deserve being paid more, they would be (module some issues like getting through HR). Simply breathing doesn’t merit you a certain wage. You have to do something to earn it.

131

Economists don’t believe it. They believe that the only measure of a person’s abilities are worth is what they can get paid for on the free market. If a person’s abilities or skills become unattractive on the free market because of automation or offshoring or any of a thousand things, they are useless, worth nothing, no matter how difficult the skills are to master, no matter how arduously acquired. Human beings are disposable in an economist’s eye.

I think economics is kind of a religion among conservatives, very much like the “Divine Right of Kings” used to be among the European aristocracy. Economic is a social construct, and malleable to human rules, in fact DEPENDS on them, as it depends on enforcing property rights. Conservatives and libertarians are loathe to admit this, because it destroys their little fantasy of economic outcomes being the result of a meritocracy, with the greatest contributors to society getting the most wealth. (Even though this is clearly not true.)

I am a progressive, I think we are all in this economy together. I do not mind the rich getting richer, or people with useful skills demanding high wage, I just think the people at the bottom ought to make a living wage. Not only is it the morally right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do, economically. If poor people can afford CD players and clothes and can go out to eat occasionally and buy more groceries, then Sony and Walmart and Chili’s and Mcdonald’s and Kroger are ALL gonna make a lot more money. They will hire more people, creating more jobs both for the poor and the middle class. But when rich people get money, they squirrel it away in offshore accounts to avoid taxes. It does no good to the economy there. The rich and middle class are shooting themselves in the foot economically by fighting a rise in the minimum raise, and it’s not because they’re too stupid to see it. It’s because they don’t WANT to see it. And that’s because they have that need to see the poor as inferior, and because on a subconscious level they enjoy their suffering. There’s certainly no RATIONAL reason for it.

No, of course not, they acquire skills because they think they will be lucrative, or because it is work they want to do. Working at Burger Doodle or at the mall sucks, and not just economically. And of course, those other jobs have higher status even though they do not pay so well. More inferior/superior stuff.

132

If the jobs are not worth a living wage, then why have the jobs?

133

Because some jobs are worth something and that something isn’t worth a living wage?

I have to cut my lawn once a week. (Well, I suppose I don’t have to, but the HOA will get angry if I don’t). So, there is some value in doing that job - happy neighbors, lawn looks nice, whatever. Of course, I don’t particularly enjoy mowing the lawn myself - it’s hot and sweaty, I have to remember to crosscut, The curvy bit by the day lilies is a pain to mow and I need to go back with the weedwhacker to fix it. So there’s an opportunity for a job here - I could pay someone to cut my lawn. What’s that worth to me? I’m pretty frugal, the lawn isn’t that big, yadda yadda - maybe it’s worth $10 to me.

So, someone comes by and says “Hey, I’ll mow your lawn for $10”, I could be persuaded to hire him. Someone else comes up and says “Hey, I’ll mow your lawn for $5”, well, guy #2 is getting that job for obvious reasons. But if the only person that shows up says “I’ll only mow your lawn for $15”, then looks like I’m mowing the lawn myself. Guy #3 has priced himself out of a job.

It’s similar to the things people have said previously about automation. If it costs a McD’s owner $20,000 a year to install, maintain, and update an automatic ordering system, and $15,000 a year to hire someone to do that, someone’s getting hired. If that person turns around and says “I’m not working for less than $30,000 - that’s a living wage, and if the work is worth doing, that’s what you should pay” - that person has priced himself out of a job because it’s not worth what he wants to get paid.

This doesn’t just apply to low-skill jobs either. For example, I was at a convention this weekend, and it had an art gallery where some artists had work for sale. Now, oil on canvas is not a skill most people have - in fact, I would be happy claiming that less than 1% of people could paint with the kind of skill that those artists had. But no way in hell am I paying $1500 for a 1 square foot painting. I did, however, get a $35 print that was about the same size.

Now, can an artists live off nothing but $35 paintings? I dunno, that’s not really my business. But if someone comes by and tells me I can’t buy a painting for less than $500 a pop because that’s a “living wage” for an artist - those artists aren’t selling squat. Same with the low-skill worker - some jobs are worth $15 an hour, and some aren’t, and if you force a wage hike, some of those low-skill workers might find they aren’t worth $15/hour after all.

Does this mean the low-skill worker deserves to starve in the streets? No, and I resent the implication I’ve seen from some that saying “this job isn’t worth that pay” translates to “I hate poor people and want them to die” - nothing is further from the truth. But it’s not McD’s responsibility to see that Hubert Hamburger-flipper has enough to live on - that’s all.

134

I agree. It also seems to be true that many mortgage companies thought it wasn’t their responsibility to check that the people they sold mortgages to could afford them.

What is a job worth? Certainly no more than the revenue it brings to a company. But how much less is solely about power. Which companies have more of these days. Not only do they get to screw workers in times of high unemployment they get to do their best to prevent workers from banding together to equalize power.

Making sure that workers can live on a full time job is what minimum wage used to be about, and what it should be about again. If a company isn’t efficient enough to make money while paying a decent wage they should either get efficient or go bankrupt. Minimum wages make for a level playing field, so they have no excuse to not make money if they are competent.

We can help also - which is why I boycott WalMart and bring my business to Costco.

135

Do you support taxing the hell out of corporations?

Because I do.

There is a social cost to exploitation. Poverty is expensive. If corporations don’t want to pay for that cost at the front end through higher wages, then they should pay for them in the back end, through higher taxes.

Because society is providing them all that labor. Society educates the cashier so they can make change. Society provides the public transportation system that delivers the employees every morning. Society provides the Head Start, the free lunch program, the afterschool programs, the food stamps, the Medicaid, and the Section 8 vouchers that supplement low wages and allow the working poor people to have some modicum of a family. If society is shelling out all this money, the least Mr. Rich-Get-Richer can do is pay more in taxes to fund them. Because all of these programs? They are subsidizing his lifestyle. He benefits from these things much more than the average taxpayer does.

Yet all I hear from the 1% is how they’re tired of being taxed. They don’t want a minimum raise hike and they don’t want their taxes increased. These people still want to get richer, though. It doesn’t make any sense.

136

If you read my previous posts, I have noted that I would support a more progressive tax system.

It makes perfect sense. Who, given the choice between more money and less money, doesn’t want more money? Nobody I know goes “man, I really wish my taxes were higher”. I would support higher taxes because I know they pay for services I want more than the money, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to be happy about it.

137

It’s not worth more than $10 for you to hire someone to mow your lawn. Let’s assume that a person offering to mow your lawn does it full-time. That is, he is operating a landscaping business, even if that business only offers lawn mowing and the guy is the only person in the business, as opposed to some 10-year-old kid who wants to make pocket money. He knows the cost of gasoline for the mower, and he knows how long it will take to mow a yard just by looking at it. He had to invest in the equipment, he needs to maintain the equipment, he needs a vehicle to transport his equipment and the fuel to run it (plus insurance and maintenance), and his mower burns a gallon of fuel per hour. Let’s say you have a big yard and it takes an hour to mow, and it costs him $5/hour to operate his machine (including all of the costs; just not fuel), and it costs him $5 to operate his vehicle. Ten dollars is not enough for the job. He determines that in order to cover his costs and make a reasonable profit for his business, he needs to charge $30/hour.

Now, you can spend the $5/hour on your own equipment, and you can mow the yard yourself. What’s your time worth? I reckon that my personal time is worth half of what I get paid at my job. Let’s say you make $20/hour. As I said, you have a big yard that takes the pro an hour to mow correctly. It might take you 90 minutes to do it well. So there’s $15 of your time, plus $7.50 for the mower’s fuel and upkeep. You just saved $25 by not hiring the guy, but it cost you $22.50 in time and operating expenses. To me, I’d rather stay cool and comfortable, than save $2.50. Of course you could find a kid to mow your lawn for $10, but he’s not going to do a proper job.

We pay for convenience. That’s why convenience stores charge more than supermarkets for most things. They’re low-volume, so their costs are higher. But they provide a service by being more convenient than having to go to a supermarket. That’s why we pay landscapers to mow our lawns instead of doing it ourselves. That’s why we eat fast food instead of cooking our own burgers. Why do you take into account the operating costs of a McDonald’s, but not the operating cost of a landscaper? And has been cited upthread, by people who actually run a restaurant, the cost of increasing wages to a liveable level have little effect on the bottom line. Someone said that a 10% increase in wages would not affect the price you pay for your food. But what if it did? And what if it actually increased the price of your meal by 10%? Are you really going stop going somewhere because you have to pay $11 for your burger and fries instead of $10? Is it really worth going to the market, buying more ground beef than you need for one burger, buying seven more buns than you need for one burger, buying potatoes, buying oil, slicing the potatoes and frying them, forming the beef patties and cooking them, and so on, basically spending an hour or more to accomplish all of this, just to save a single dollar?

I think that jobs are worth more than you think they’re worth, and they’re certainly worth paying a person enough to live on instead of the less efficient means of supplementing wages with social programs.

138

Well, suffice to say I disagree, and I found the above argument entirely unconvincing. I’m not sure why you think you get to tell me what it’s worth to me to get my lawn mowed, or what it’s worth to me to eat out, or whatever. We all have a price we’ll pay for things. If that price gets too high, we stop paying for it and do it ourselves. Or we do without. If labor prices itself too high, it may find that it has priced itself out of a job. I don’t see what’s so hard to get about that.

139

I didn’t tell you what it’s worth to you to do those things. I asked if it was really worth the very small amount of savings if you did them yourself. If it is, then the people providing the services won’t get your business. But as has been shown and cited, raising wages will have little if any impact on consumer prices. I don’t see what’s so hard to get about the way the real world works, as opposed to the doomsayers’ theoretical way the world works.

140

States that tried that saw the migration of businesses to states that didn’t. That is the social cost of exploiting businesses. As long as there are variable tax rates and a surplus of people then businesses will seek monetary equilibrium.