Paying a "living wage" for menial jobs

Edwin wrote:

For context: Who earns a minimum wage.

Great info. Some anecdotal notes:

An increase of minimum wage to 10.10 hourly pegged to inflation would be disastrous for only the most lousy of tipping based service industry business owners. There are times when the business must pad wages to minimum wage when tips don't cover it, but these are fairly rare in my region. To give a really bad example, a few servers I know made an average of 35 dollars an hour over the course of a three hour brunch. To give a more reasonable example, the servers working the slump between 2 pm and 5 pm could almost always pick up at least 10-12 dollars each hour in cash tips. GG, happy hour specials.

My point is not that this industry doesn't need legislation supporting wage issues. My point is that "minimum wage hikes will be a disaster for business" is a stupid thing to say.

I'm not too surprised to see the numbers skew toward females and young people. There's a lot of weird and extremely complicated gender problems with the food service industry - things like patrons preferring a male bartender at a brewpub but a female bartender at a sports bar - that I would have a really hard time quantifying.

But the bottom line is that even though I've read a lot of Cato's dismissive snobbery about how minimum wage is terrible and racist, literally none of what they say reflects reality.

Edit - I guess my real point is that you should tip your f*cking server, but I think I'm already on record there.

Um. I don't understand the argument against paying a living wage for full time jobs.
I don't mean this to indicate anyone here, just the topic in general.

Do people actually think we could shift our low skilled labor to higher skill jobs and have that work?
No shortage in low skill labor, no excess of high skill labor, and of course every single person is more than capable of skilled labor right?

Do people think it is acceptable to publicly subsidize companies that compete on price rather than service?

Do people think it is good for businesses in general (not the subset that pays these wages) to have so many people working more than full time and not having any spending money?

Is there some argument that it is in some way good for society to have large numbers of people who work well over full time hours just to eat? Is that good for children who need parental encouragement?

Do people actually think that workers who can barely scrape by with two jobs will actually be able to stand up for the rights we have given them by LAW? Or is it more likely they will do whatever they need to to keep that job?

Are people under the impression that the minimum wage has the buying power it previously had or represents a living wage currently?

I just don't get the discussion at all.

realityhack wrote:

Is there some argument that it is in some way good for society to have large numbers of people who work well over full time hours just to eat? Is that good for children who need parental encouragement?

Do people actually think that workers who can barely scrape by with two jobs will actually be able to stand up for the rights we have given them by LAW? Or is it more likely they will do whatever they need to to keep that job?

...

I just don't get the discussion at all.

This is where I am, too.

We as a nation are so absurdly affluent that there is no excuse for the argument that anyone who is willing to do the work of a full-time job should not be provided that opportunity and paid a wage to take them out of poverty.

We have too much of a national identity wrapped up in this concept of "winners" and "losers", and "if you care enough then you'll do what it takes" which will somehow magically solve all problems. We've managed to, as a society, build a mental house of cards that somehow suffices to blame the poor as a whole for their poverty.

Remember the reaction when Obama had the nerve to mention that you didn't build that company in a vacuum?

With our per capita wealth we should not have this level of poverty, homelessness, etc.

The counterpoint - one I stress I don't share - is that this is the country that had to go to war to abolish slavery. Our tradition is very much steeped in taking as much as we can from the weak and concentrating it among the strong. You could almost say our country's neutral state *is* a caste system, and fighting against that is neither economically intelligent nor patriotic.

I think this is all a momentous pile of horsesh*t, of course, but think tanks like Cato consider it common sense. You can almost smell their regret that slavery is no longer legal tucked beneath their loud proclamations that slavery goes against everything for which they stand.

Seth wrote:

The counterpoint - one I stress I don't share - is that this is the country that had to go to war to abolish slavery. Our tradition is very much steeped in taking as much as we can from the weak and concentrating it among the strong. You could almost say our country's neutral state *is* a caste system, and fighting against that is neither economically intelligent nor patriotic.

I think this is all a momentous pile of horsesh*t, of course, but think tanks like Cato consider it common sense. You can almost smell their regret that slavery is no longer legal tucked beneath their loud proclamations that slavery goes against everything for which they stand.

Don't you know that the "free market" would have eliminated slavery in favor of remote labor which is much cheaper than owning slaves?

SARCASM

Seriously...

SARCASM

Actually I believe their official stance is that men and women should be given the liberty to sell themselves into slavery, or some other thing.

Although I use a slightly looser definition of slavery that includes lives tied to work due to low wages.

this being the term for it..

It is interesting how I worked far more when I had a minimum wage job. Now that I have doubled what I make with a different job, I work far, far less.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

It is interesting how I worked far more when I had a minimum wage job. Now that I have doubled what I make with a different job, I work far, far less.

Interesting but quite predictable. Even within one step in the same company you go from people working the entire shift to people who come in and get a cup of coffee while waiting for a morning meeting, then observe and direct heavy labor rather than doing it.

Minimum wage jobs tend to be grueling which is part of how people get locked in, not having the energy left to apply for other jobs or take training courses etc. They are also more likely to get split shifts and inconsistent schedules which leads to the same.

Seth wrote:

Actually I believe their official stance is that men and women should be given the liberty to sell themselves into slavery, or some other thing.

Although I use a slightly looser definition of slavery that includes lives tied to work due to low wages.

this being the term for it..

Well put. But I was paraphrasing The Yes Men in an actual presentation as the 'wto'

Relevant part around 2:55

Not sure if this belongs here but it is Living Wage connected

Nice interview with Sarah Kendizor about unpaid internships, how they devalue work and lock out not just the lower classes but increasingly the middle classes from "prestige" careers
http://www.policymic.com/articles/48...

which leads on/back some articles she also wrote about academic salaries and their impact/meaning for the broader economy
The first narrowly on the "plight" of adjunct professors
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...

and this one on what the structure of adjunct teaching means for the middle classes
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...

Some good numbers in there but essentially if you're charging $50,000 per student it's pretty shocking to pay someone <$2,500 to teach a course.

I know this little video starts to get more into the realm of wealth distribution, but still thought it was relevant to this discussion. Very interesting to see how wealth is distributed in a visual format:

Also relevant to this:

ZaneRockfist wrote:

It is interesting how I worked far more when I had a minimum wage job. Now that I have doubled what I make with a different job, I work far, far less.

As they touch on how much the middle class would have to work to earn the same as 1 hour of a 1 percenter.

As they touch on how much the middle class would have to work to earn the same as 1 hour of a 1 percenter.

Nel, I think he was saying, as his income level has rised, he feels like he has to do less work in an hour.

Having gone from $7something an hour working as a cashier in a store to now almost $14 an hour in our call center as a specialist, I can concur with this sentiment. I'm still busy, but I don't feel like I'm working AS HARD on the job as I did before.

Wow, this thread is super sad. Whatever happened to the land of opportunity : p

Mex wrote:

Whatever happened to the land of opportunity : p

It changed into an oligarchy.

Mex wrote:

Wow, this thread is super sad. Whatever happened to the land of opportunity : p

became the land of opportunists?

Mex wrote:

Wow, this thread is super sad. Whatever happened to the land of opportunity : p

Americans in the 1980s believed the greatest lie ever told: that if you give the rich all the money, it will trickle down to everyone else and we will all have a Rolls Royce in the carport by Christmas.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Mex wrote:

Wow, this thread is super sad. Whatever happened to the land of opportunity : p

Americans in the 1980s believed the greatest lie ever told: that if you give the rich all the money, it will trickle down to everyone else and we will all have a Rolls Royce in the carport by Christmas.

Lots of Americans now believe the second greatest lie ever told: that the wealthy are still being taxed too much, and that's why we still aren't seeing those fabulous jobs that were promised in the 80's.

I'd argue that >15% of Americans believe the rich are taxed too much. See the above video I posted on what most Americans think the wealth distribution should be vs. where it's really at.

McDonald's employee resources website provided workers, some of whom are striking for higher wages, with helpful tips on how much they should tip their pool boy, massage therapist, and au pair during the holiday season.

This is the same website that's instructed workers to get a second job or sell their stuff on eBay or Craigslist to make ends meet and has provided helpful tips about stretching their worker's food budgets by "breaking food into pieces" so they "[eat] less and still [feel] full."

Let them eat cake.

LarryC wrote:

Let them eat cake.

Isn't it just.

The company I work for doesn't really care too much about its employees, although they pretend to. And advancement into higher positions is based entirely upon who you know; however, I will say they do offer a lot of methods for earning money. I do industrial electrical work at a chemical plant. I work for a contractor there. And we are given the possibility of multiple raises per year. There is one raise that you get at the end of a year of service, which advances you to the next level of your craft. If you aren't topped out, like a journeyman electrician, it is pretty sizable. About $2 or so. Obviously this reflects increased skill and knowledge, but still, it is an avenue for advancement. But beyond that, they give people the chance to earn 3 mini-raises that add up to a full raise throughout the year. All you have to do is take and pass two tests for each mini-raise. You can test for a raise every two months. In less than three months, I've increased my pay by 80 cents. And the next one I get in 2 months will mean I will have increased my pay by $1.38 in 5 months. By the end of the year of my time there, I'll be making about $3.50 more than when I started. And then I can test some more for more mini-raises until my full raise. And these tests give you national certifications.

I think it's great when employers pitch in for training and then pay more for having it. Same for bonus programs that actually depend upon the employee doing something they have control over well. It's a win win situation.

a living wage of 10.10 per hour would create jobs, says study that reinforces my confirmation bias.

Seth wrote:

a living wage of 10.10 per hour would create jobs, says study that reinforces my confirmation bias.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm not against a more gradual raising of the minimum wage. I actually buy the argument that the current rate in some states has slipped below the "iron law of wages" point and that companies are relying on taxpayers to fund the difference.

That being said, I still don't buy this article's claim that the actual minimum wage should be $18-20 an hour based on productivity. Followed the link to the study and didn't see any evidence that worker output at fast food jobs is responsible for increased productivity versus say other factors like automation of drive thru orders, improved supply chains, etc. I'd be interested in seeing such a study though.

jdzappa wrote:

That being said, I still don't buy this article's claim that the actual minimum wage should be $18-20 an hour based on productivity. Followed the link to the study and didn't see any evidence that worker output at fast food jobs is responsible for increased productivity versus say other factors like automation of drive thru orders, improved supply chains, etc. I'd be interested in seeing such a study though.

I agree with what they're saying, but I think it's a bad argument to make. Wages aren't hard tied to productivity, and they really haven't ever been. Theoretically, shouldn't we all be making a bazillion gazillion dollars since we're so much more productive than feudalist peasants 800 years ago? It's just not a very useful piece of data.

So in theory, they're probably right, but in reality, who cares it's not important.

The fact that a minimum wage of 7.xx / hr requires taxpayer subsidy is a really good one though.

Seth wrote:
jdzappa wrote:

That being said, I still don't buy this article's claim that the actual minimum wage should be $18-20 an hour based on productivity. Followed the link to the study and didn't see any evidence that worker output at fast food jobs is responsible for increased productivity versus say other factors like automation of drive thru orders, improved supply chains, etc. I'd be interested in seeing such a study though.

I agree with what they're saying, but I think it's a bad argument to make. Wages aren't hard tied to productivity, and they really haven't ever been. Theoretically, shouldn't we all be making a bazillion gazillion dollars since we're so much more productive than feudalist peasants 800 years ago? It's just not a very useful piece of data.

So in theory, they're probably right, but in reality, who cares it's not important.

The fact that a minimum wage of 7.xx / hr requires taxpayer subsidy is a really good one though.

Actually there's quite a bit of talk among economists that say the reason most people's wages have largely stagnated since the 70s is exactly because workers wages didn't rise as their productivity did. Instead, the vast majority of that added revenue was kept by corporations and handed out to investors as dividends. Everyone but the workers got rich and that's essentially what we've seen with the trend of growing income inequality in America.

OG -- do you know what time period on which those factors are based? I'll buy it if it's looking at a time range from, say, the industrial revolution moving forward, or something recent like that.