Muppet of a Man
Member
This is the truth. Period.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Help me understand $15 minimum wage
- Thread starter DOWN
- Start date
- Status
This is the truth. Period.
It's fucked up to think that food stamps and medicaid are a necessity for the employed. Those programs aren't meant to subsidise employers -that's the problem. We've grown to accept those programs as being part of the fabric of American life rather than a safety net, and corporations are exploiting that sentiment.
Employers shouldn't be paying for health care directly. Period.
That setup is insane given the misalignment w/ workers and employers incentives when it comes to medical plans and benefits.
Going from $7.25 -> $15 over 1 year or 6 doesn't alter that you're doubling the minimum wage.
$15 minimum wage is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It's not going to help anybody.
Is it going to help the single mother of 3 who's currently working at $16/hour? No. Her "cost of living" to support 3 kids is still way above $15/hour.
Is it going to help the high school kid trying to pay for a new car? No. No business is going to pay a $15/hour living wage to a kid with no experience and who doesn't need a living wage because he lives with his parents.
In fact it will hurt a lot of people currently making less then $15/hour because they will lose their jobs and their previous duties will get shuffled to the employees staying. Those employees might not like it but they won't want to risk losing their jobs when fewer companies are hiring.
The only people it will help are the moderately experienced/ skilled employees who were previously only making ~$12-14/hour.
Is it going to help the single mother of 3 who's currently working at $16/hour? No. Her "cost of living" to support 3 kids is still way above $15/hour.
Is it going to help the high school kid trying to pay for a new car? No. No business is going to pay a $15/hour living wage to a kid with no experience and who doesn't need a living wage because he lives with his parents.
In fact it will hurt a lot of people currently making less then $15/hour because they will lose their jobs and their previous duties will get shuffled to the employees staying. Those employees might not like it but they won't want to risk losing their jobs when fewer companies are hiring.
The only people it will help are the moderately experienced/ skilled employees who were previously only making ~$12-14/hour.
Right, which is why you have to wonder- Why hasn't anyone introduced a plan to mathematically calculate what should be considered a minimum wage by state/county?
Make everyone adhere to that, and base it on financial data pertaining to that particular area. Seems like a fair compromise to me.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I am. Any system incapable of ensuring its workers have a living wage isn't a system that needs to be maintained. We create our systems of living to keep our people secure and alive, not our corporations. What's the point if we can't do this for our people?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
There are studies that show that increasing the minimum wage actually increases profits and only has negible effects on unemployment. Why? Because lower income households tend to spend their money keeping the income flowing inside the economy. a bigger profit turn, means more volumes, of which along the SCM gets a better markup. The more you sell, the more you can make per item sold, meaning that it is worth the upcost of paying a worker more, if you have a whole lower class who are good capitalist consumers who can buy and afford shit even when its not black friday.
Think of it this way; when you beat your poorest half to death, the horse is not good at being a good capitalistic horse and buy fancy new horse shoes and horse trousers. It cannot afford new saddles either. It's also not a good because its overworked. It gets more easily sicked, has a lower level of happiness which hurts the horses productivity.
But lets throw out the horse analogy, and just engage in what if; What if it increased the unemployment wage substantially?
The solidarity, and compassion you should have for your fellow man is what gives them a chance, and reduces their chances of becoming sick or turning to desperation, self harm or even crime. All those things end up costing society massively in other ways along the line. Treat the wound while it is fresh, not when it is a open cyst that needs amputation of the entire limb.
When a population has become too used to a certain commodity level and cheap prices they will resist any reduction on their quality of life. No higher taxes, no higher prices, no gas tax. They are for solidarity and progressive values as long as they can still trample people half to death as they march for the impossible sales!111
At some point someone has to pick up the tab, and its going to suck for that generation, but that is how it is.
Right now the entire Greek people is paying a massive price because the previous administrations and rich elite basically was all like "fuck you got mine". Now their quality of living is severely hurt and everyone suffers.
If you want to have more economic stability, security and better efficient public systems you have to reduce the strain in the lowest classes.
This really is a issue of where helping the lower class benefits everyone.
If you're making 15 now, once the minimum wage hits 15, your pay will adjust to a higher wage, and those who have that will have theirs go up, and so it is. We're masterminds at making a hierarchy and its one of the things that is good about our monetary reward structure- It's easy to give bread based on who deserves more and who does not.
Think of it this way; when you beat your poorest half to death, the horse is not good at being a good capitalistic horse and buy fancy new horse shoes and horse trousers. It cannot afford new saddles either. It's also not a good because its overworked. It gets more easily sicked, has a lower level of happiness which hurts the horses productivity.
But lets throw out the horse analogy, and just engage in what if; What if it increased the unemployment wage substantially?
The solidarity, and compassion you should have for your fellow man is what gives them a chance, and reduces their chances of becoming sick or turning to desperation, self harm or even crime. All those things end up costing society massively in other ways along the line. Treat the wound while it is fresh, not when it is a open cyst that needs amputation of the entire limb.
When a population has become too used to a certain commodity level and cheap prices they will resist any reduction on their quality of life. No higher taxes, no higher prices, no gas tax. They are for solidarity and progressive values as long as they can still trample people half to death as they march for the impossible sales!111
At some point someone has to pick up the tab, and its going to suck for that generation, but that is how it is.
Right now the entire Greek people is paying a massive price because the previous administrations and rich elite basically was all like "fuck you got mine". Now their quality of living is severely hurt and everyone suffers.
If you want to have more economic stability, security and better efficient public systems you have to reduce the strain in the lowest classes.
This really is a issue of where helping the lower class benefits everyone.
If you're making 15 now, once the minimum wage hits 15, your pay will adjust to a higher wage, and those who have that will have theirs go up, and so it is. We're masterminds at making a hierarchy and its one of the things that is good about our monetary reward structure- It's easy to give bread based on who deserves more and who does not.
Our adaption is basic income, which would make the need of making a minimum wage a living wage irrelevant.
I believe the point to the user you've replied to is that the battle for minimum wage increases is ultimately a futile battle. Which, if we're to be honest, it very likely is.
We can work with it, and I would personally say we should, but so many of us are hoodwinked into the idea that solving this fixes the issues we have. No. This will work for some and probably be a direction that won't even last well for another 25 years in some respects.
No, when I interviewed there a few years ago for a school job it was 10 dollars
boiled goose
good with gravy
Umm economists do this all the time. Do you think legislation is passed based on what is fair? Hahahahahaa
I don't know, if you have good employees, run things efficiently and produce a quality product you can make a good living while paying high wages. My employees (carpenters) make between 25 and 30 dollars an hour and with heath insurance and retirement that I provide it goes up to between 50 and 60 dollars an hour per employee. I pay for drive time after the first hour as well as motel and 45 dollars a day per diem for meals when traveling out of town. I compete against other construction companies who pay less by getting the better workers and retaining them. My job turnaround time is faster.
My company is still a small one so that does make it easier to me to manage all the upper management between my business partner and I. Both of us are able to do quite fine while making sure our employees have a solid income and safety net.
I know my company is not for instance typical and some types of retail for instance could not pay the same but they can still pay decent wages. One of my acquaintances runs a food truck and has a eatery as well and the standard cost of a meal is between 8 and 11 dollars and he pays his workforce starting at 15 dollars an hour, most of them make more and as a result he has low turnover and a loyal staff that works hard.
There are many business owners in the US who believe in and implement decent wages for our employees. There are many more who I feel are shortsited and try to maximize profits and let the tax payer cover the food stamps and section 8 housing, etc.
The ultimate goal of a raise in the minimum wage would be to raise spending power of the lower income consumer. Instead of money ending up in fewer and fewer hands of the much more weathy, it will be in many more hands of lower income families and individuals who would be using it for daily necessities which would grow the economy creating need for new jobs. The argument that companies cannot compete by paying the worker more while those at the top make fortunes is silly.
My company is still a small one so that does make it easier to me to manage all the upper management between my business partner and I. Both of us are able to do quite fine while making sure our employees have a solid income and safety net.
I know my company is not for instance typical and some types of retail for instance could not pay the same but they can still pay decent wages. One of my acquaintances runs a food truck and has a eatery as well and the standard cost of a meal is between 8 and 11 dollars and he pays his workforce starting at 15 dollars an hour, most of them make more and as a result he has low turnover and a loyal staff that works hard.
There are many business owners in the US who believe in and implement decent wages for our employees. There are many more who I feel are shortsited and try to maximize profits and let the tax payer cover the food stamps and section 8 housing, etc.
The ultimate goal of a raise in the minimum wage would be to raise spending power of the lower income consumer. Instead of money ending up in fewer and fewer hands of the much more weathy, it will be in many more hands of lower income families and individuals who would be using it for daily necessities which would grow the economy creating need for new jobs. The argument that companies cannot compete by paying the worker more while those at the top make fortunes is silly.
andythinkpad
Member
People who make minimum income has a lot of need to buy everyday things and services. All of their income will be go right back to the local economy. What is it so hard to understand.
As for the argument that some jobs are not worth $15/hr, the burden is at the small and large business to work out better automation or the more efficient distribution model.
Long term effect of higher minimum wage is that the minimum skill requirement for full time employee will also raise.
As for the argument that some jobs are not worth $15/hr, the burden is at the small and large business to work out better automation or the more efficient distribution model.
Long term effect of higher minimum wage is that the minimum skill requirement for full time employee will also raise.
I agree, but business that can take the hit will need time to re-evaluate their finances and $15 is well above the cost of living in many places which is why neither NY nor Cali's proposals set the minimum wage to &15 until next decade. If you wanna argue for an instant switch nationwide, go for it, but that's no what's being proposed by any progressive politician that pushed for this issue to be discussed in the first place.
We already have these models. Good luck getting them passed.
Sadly, we don't have a benevolent dictatorship in which to implement good economic solutions over the angry tears of people on both the right and left.
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I see this argument a lot, but really, what businesses are just hiring people for no reason other than they're cheap to employ? Businesses employ as many people as it takes to operate, no more and no less. If they're forced to pay more for each employee they may ultimately look for ways to reduce their workforce, but this is something that they're already doing. At a certain point, less money for the people at the top becomes a way to create value for shareholders, and that's something the economy needs.
And for people making just above $15, they won't see an immediate increase, but they will see an increase over time as the bottom end of employment rises up. It won't apply equally everywhere but that's okay. I absolutely loathe the "Well I make more than the new minimum so this won't help me therefore fuck the poor" attitude I see a lot. 1) You'll eventually see an increase and 2) These other people need an increase now and if you're only reason for them not getting more money is that you don't get more money as well then forget you.
I'm not so blind as to think it won't have a detrimental impact in the very short term, but after at most a year of adjustment the overall health of the economy would improve.
Show me some.
And I have no idea what your point is. Obviously if someone wants to change the minimum wage, they'd want to do it intelligently.
CloudyTuba
Member
This is a really simple fact that some people just don't seem to understand.
Resident_UA
Member
This is such an ignorant statement. If economy was this simple any idiot would be able to make decisions. It's much more complex. For starters increasing minimum wage also increases spending which in turn helps business... Having minimum wage that keeps people out of poverty is beneficial to the society as a whole. Smaller number of people in prison, better healthcare etc. You can make an argument that increasing minimum wage overnight could be a big hit to the economy, but higher minimum wage is not inherintly bad.
Also I have no idea how people live even on 15 an hour. That's 31 thousand a year BEFORE taxes.
Not if they're self-interested.
boiled goose
good with gravy
You dont need a benevolent dictator. Just a representative government.
We don't currently have a representative government in the US. Their are deliberate forces at work keeping wages low.
Umm gooogle labor economics minimum wage usa. You will find a plethora of papers.
Tallshortman
Member
$15 absolutely does not make sense for a federal minimum. Some urban areas yes it should be fine, however applying it in small rural communities with low cost of living doesn't make sense. I support minimum wage for adults being a living wage. It should be adjusted on a semi-regular basis by cost of living.
THIS. I love it when corporations cry about lower earning reports and consumer spending around the holidays not realizing the irony of it being directly related to laying off 10% of their workforce earlier in the year, lol
Unlike the "job creators", if you give consumers money they will consume; pay bills, fix their house, etc...money all back into the economy, all taxed.
All a billionaire does is stash his cash overseas while it gets dust.
13 and it goes up the longer you are at the company. although costco has the benefit of making most of their money on membership fees and use store profits to pay employee wages and other overhead.
Here's a recent article about Seattle, which is in the early stages of a multi-step process of getting to $15/hr by 2021.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/a-year-in-the-sky-is-not-falling-from-seattles-minimum-wage-hike/
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/a-year-in-the-sky-is-not-falling-from-seattles-minimum-wage-hike/
Because many areas have cheaper housing. Working on a separate thread explaining that issue. For the numbers in the chart, halve them to get at an approximate living wage,since this is by household, not individual.
Okay yeah I was off but it seems like the minimum wage at Costco is now $13 which seems pretty good compared to other similar jobs: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...minimum-wage-as-competition-for-workers-grows
Resident_UA
Member
15 is about 30 thousand a year. I guess I can think of few places where you can live on maybe 25 thousand a year, but less than that?
Man, is this what we've come to? There are enough resource in this world that everyone could live comfortable lives, but a select few control most of it through a system designed to render the equal distribution of wealth untenable. Then they get people like you to sing the praises of the economic prison 99% of us have been put in.
Why don't you try living on 8 dollars an hour, and then come back to me.
I would completely disagree with this - if a company is only surviving because they have employees that can't survive on the pay provided, the company is a parasite. That company is surviving artificially off of subsidized labor, because those employees then need state help just to eat and have a place to live. I don't feel I should have to subsidize a profitable company with my tax dollars - those profits should go in to paying workers before dividends or bonuses to CEOs.
TheCochese
Banned
I don't pretend to know much about direct impacts on a minimum wage increase, so don't respond to this as if I do. I'm also someone who has done a polar shift in my political leanings from conservative to liberal on the social side, but still retain a lot of classical conservative (or at least libertarian) economic views (and is someone who does think the military could use a haircut, so don't overreact).
That said, I wonder how many of you who are touting a turnaround in wages to spending are considering industries where it might not happen. I look at heathcare, and don't see it being 1:1 with the rest of the economy as it pertains to putting that wealth back into the system. While there can be some expected growth in better living and lifestyle, people aren't going to decide to have surgery just because they have a few more bucks. Not when it isn't called for. There would be some level of increased costs across the board, and I could see that having a much higher impact on some categories of industry than others. More money means I want to buy a phone more often, not go to the doctor more often. Not on the same level, anyway.
That said, I wonder how many of you who are touting a turnaround in wages to spending are considering industries where it might not happen. I look at heathcare, and don't see it being 1:1 with the rest of the economy as it pertains to putting that wealth back into the system. While there can be some expected growth in better living and lifestyle, people aren't going to decide to have surgery just because they have a few more bucks. Not when it isn't called for. There would be some level of increased costs across the board, and I could see that having a much higher impact on some categories of industry than others. More money means I want to buy a phone more often, not go to the doctor more often. Not on the same level, anyway.
Umm just did. Found nothing on a formula which could be used country wide.
Muffdraul
Member
Yes, won't somebody please think of the poor downtrodden CEOs who run these companies and see to it that their employees' wages are set at a level that will allow them to get as many ivory back scratchers as they want come bonus time?
When I was a little kid, I remember being taught that greed was a bad thing. Odd how that just seemed to go away completely about 30 years ago.
citation needed.
Resident_UA
Member
Because many areas have cheaper housing. Working on a separate thread explaining that issue. For the numbers in the chart, halve them to get at an approximate living wage,since this is by household, not individual.
Even the low ones are very close to 15 an hour. This does not include things that would not be cheaper (electronics, most of supermarket food, etc)
Also this is from 2014. I'm willing to bet that these went up by at least 10% over the past 2 years.
they also usually give employees a bump in pay when the minimum wage goes up.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Many can't, and people will assume welp you got a pay raise so good luck to ya.
It's why I'd rather just increase corporate taxation, and funnel that money into guaranteed minimum income + universal healthcare. That vs increasing the minimum wage.
The former won't ever happen in the current climate politically so I'm stuck with being ok with the latter I guess.
This is false. Minimum wage workers will not "lose their jobs" due to a minimum wage increase. In fact, them making more money means companies will be able to sell their products to more people and they will make more money.
The single mother of 3 example is very specific. Try thinking about society as a whole.
The reason minimum wage workers will lose their jobs is automation.
TheRagnCajun
Member
The demand of work that needs to be done is not set by the cost of said work. You're treating 'work' as a good that can be consumed, as if that consumption can be increased or decreased. 'work' is more like a utility. Its like paying your electric bill. When the cost increases, you may take steps to be more efficient, but by and large you are going to consume the same amount, the same amount of work has to get done. You can't just decide to use half the workers when the cost doubles. Furthermore, large corporations are already taking what steps they can to be efficient because they are in a competitive market place. Capitalism is already an effective mechanism for keeping companies labour-efficient, regardless of the cost of labour.
This is also why automation is a bit of a misnomer, because companies are already exploring/advancing these technologies regardless of the labour rate. Automation also has other advantages such as consistency of work, never making a mistake, no turnover, no training, etc. etc.
What does make a meaningful difference to the amount of work that has to get done is the demand for your goods and services. If sales go up, you will have more work to do and need more employees. That's why some argue that it is good for business. Put more money in the pockets of workers, and consumption will go up, sales will go up, work needed to be done will up, and employment will go up.
What amount of money is fair for 'skilled' and 'unskilled' work is a relative thing, because the value of money is constantly decreasing every year. Minimum wage is supposed to be for unskilled work. The point is that minimum wage hasn't kept up relative to inflation over the last few decades, so while $15 may seem like an extreme, its meant to be a large correction to something that should have been happening for a long time.
I didn't say anywhere I was against anything. I was just pointing out that post's logic was wrong.
Even if I did disagree, is that enough of a reason to respond like that?
Inflation is near zero right now.
$15 an hour for a 2-bedroom household. You have to halve that number presuming a roommate.
You realize the nightmare this could become? Some businesses would move to separate counties to pay their employees less. Which would change all the numbers. How often would you then redo the math in our bureaucracy?
Already happens. Would not be surprised if you see that in Seattle.
Because many areas have cheaper housing. Working on a separate thread explaining that issue. For the numbers in the chart, halve them to get at an approximate living wage,since this is by household, not individual.
lol "halve them"
One bedroom apartments aren't always available and when they are they're not half the cost of a two bedroom. And unless everyone has a life partner, you're essentially saying that America should buddy up and everyone should find roommates to live in their squalor with.
Angelus Errare
Banned
He's quoting FDR who said "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." When he enacted minimum wage in this country as part of the New Deal...
- Status