I watched this video source, and I agree that minimum wage and a lack of livable-wage jobs are indeed problems in the economy today. I especially took interest in the part talking about wage increases causing a loss of jobs, but in the same video, it talks about people needing to work 3 jobs. If people only work one job and the other two jobs disappear then does job loss really make a difference?
A big part of the problem, I'm fairly sure, is 'Reaganomics' as it is often known, or 'neoliberalism' to use the economics terminology. In 1970 American economist Milton Friedman wrote a New York Times essay titled “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.” This doctrine was implemented ten years later in the US by Ronald Reagan and in Britain by Margaret Thatcher.
Yeah. It’s a serious issue and has been for a long time now. It’s one of the reasons why people are upset with the government. They view the failure to raise the minimum wage as a reason to hate the system. It’s even worse once you factor in political extremism. Why do you think so many of todays youth identify as socialist? It’s because of failed economic policies.
With business officially excused from any social responsibility, I was puzzled about who would be responsible. A long time ago in England, large numbers of peasant farmers were evicted from the land - mainly from 1603 onward - and had no means to feed themselves. Initially, the Church took responsibility, and then eventually, the government stepped in. The US has for many years had spare land available for agriculture, so unemployment pay has long been seen as more of a privilege than the necessity it was in England. Milton Friedman did not think the government should be the answer. He said: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." I do not accept that a wealthy religious nation should fail to offer warmth, food and shelter to cold starving homeless people.
I've spent a number of years on about the minimum wage, which is a bit over seven dollars an hour in this state. One actual problem I saw was: A mother had to leave her 4-week old baby with relatives and a few months later in paid childcare. She had to do this to go back to work and 30,000 dollars a year, much of which went on child care. Maternity leave, or better still a Universal Basic Income, would be a far better solution for both mother and child. I don't think she should have needed to go back to work at all. There are many single people and men who would have been very happy to get the job she had and who would have done it well. She was very good at it, but I think she would also have been a very good mother, and I'm old-fashioned enough to think that's an important job.
A single minimum wage for the entire country at 15 dollars an hour might be right for high-cost areas like LA and NYC but would be crazy high out here in New Mexico where housing costs are fairly low. 1 The results of raising the minimum wage would be beneficial if the company paying the wages had large profit margins - in those cases higher wages would move money down the economy, which is the opposite of what politicians and big corporations generally do. 2 But in other cases, such as franchises existing on small profit margins, it would do exactly as the critics say - close the businesses and increase unemployment. 3 And unfortunately, there is a third situation; large companies with big profits would find it economically beneficial to automate. I've only experienced the second and third situations - the small restaurant in the store increased pay to 15 dollars an hour and a few months later closed, so now we have no restaurant. And each year when pay was increased, the store reduced staffing levels and increased automation - to maintain or increase profits. And that is what the nation accepted as its overall purpose back in the Reagan era.
Well, we've heard that prices are going up due to increased demand. It will be a tough position to argue that wages should remain stagnant while prices rise and profits soar. Corporations Raise Prices as Consumers Spend ‘With a Vengeance’ Corporate America is lifting prices and bragging about bigger profits as consumers open their wallets and spend heartily.
The argument for raising the minimum wage may sound like a confusing mess, and I think that's exactly what it is. The argument omits the crucial factor - costs. I started on 9 dollars an hour and averaged 32 hours a week, which comes to a bit below minimum wage on a 40 hour week. When the pay was increased to 10 dollars an hour, the staffing levels were allowed to decline and the job became very stressful. But the pay was still OK. The following year the pay was increased to 11 dollars an hour because customers had complained that staff were getting government benefits. A number of us complained about the pay increase, but we were told the decision had been made at the corporate level and could not be changed. I informed my section manager that if I averaged above 28 hours per week I would lose my healthcare, but he was unable to change my scheduled hours. About that time, I needed a minor operation. So I had to leave the company to get my pay low enough to get government healthcare. Despite being a simple 2-hour operation, it would have my entire income for three years to pay for the procedure.
Those making 'just minimum wage' are less than 2% of the workforce, and the demographics are somewhere up to the 25 year old. Part of that demographic is also people who have taken second jobs to bulk up their take home, and hold for the primary jobs well above FMW. There is no fixed 'living wage'. It fluctuates based on geographic COL, and has full effect on the cost of the consumer product or service. The 'living wage' is a massive misnomer, since every person's cost of living is different. The idea that the employer should be responsible to make sure a person makes enough to support their mode of living removes any incentive to improve their wage based on merit, and IMO, merit is the only thing that should increase a person's wage.
minimum wage is supposed to be for people just entering the workforce who havnt developed a valuable (rare) skill yet. Like washing dishes, sweeping, frying fast food... these are things anyone is able to do. People that just keep doing these things for years are not developing a valuable skill. And thats fine, but they cant expect to be able to make more money than some kid in high school while at the same time just doing what people in high school do. Are there a multitude of skilled jobs paying only minimum wage? Thats when theres a problem. If people are expecting to be able to do the most basic jobs for their whole life and raise a family on it, then they are their own problem.
No, that's not what's for and not why it exists. The wage rate for each of the 800+ skill-sets is determined by the Supply & Demand of each skill-set in a specific geographical area. In many of the geographic labor markets, the Supply of fast-food workers is high, but the Demand is low, and so they get paid minimum wage, but in the Cincinnati MSA, the Supply is low and Demand is high, so they start at $11-$13/hour. Here, the younger people have a poor work ethic. If you need 12 people in your fast-food joint on Saturday night between 4:00 PM and 12:00 AM then that's what you need and having 4 people not show up because they wanna stream videos or smoke dope, and having 2 others show up when they wanna and leave when they wanna, is bad for business. They have to pay $11-$13 to get the retired workers who will show up on time and work the whole time instead of playing with the cell-phones.
Actually, it's to give employer's a base rate for unskilled labor. You just used more words to say the same thing that modernpaladin said, and I have said multiple times. People make FMW when their skill set is common, and there are plenty of people to fill the demand. Yes, they may actually be making $11+ an hour now, but they are STILL the lowest paid tier in the wage market. It is, technically, the 'minimum wage' that can be paid for that position at the moment. Those that are pushing for higher 'minimum wage', don't seem to grasp the idea that it will still be the lowest wage paid, as the cost of the consumer product goes up, any additional purchasing power of that 'increase' is gone in a puff of smoke, and the cycle starts all over again.
I'd guess some of the proponents of a 15 dollar per hour minimum wage might expect it to cause wealthy companies to pay out more and to increase incomes. And also to move money up the economy, alleviate misery at the low-income end, and reduce wealth inequality. But there are reasons to believe it won't work that way. 1. Many retail jobs pay up to 40 hours a week from Thanksgiving until Christmas, but around 25 hours a week outside the busy season. 2. My jobs required working irregular hours, so working two jobs was impossible. 3. I've met a fair number of people, even at work, with PTSD who could not concentrate and were barely functional in our mentally demanding occupations. A higher minimum wage will do nothing for the unemployed or those in the wide range of exempted occupations. 4. College fees and medical costs swamp anyone on a minimum wage. And in some areas, housing costs will also do that. 15 dollars an hour will be too much in some cases, not enough in others, and overall add to labor costs when employment isn't generally what we are trying to reduce. I'd suggest the minimum wage debate is a decoy to avoid doing anything useful.
There seems to be a large number of people who did not take into consideration the return on investment when it comes to college degrees. Laying out (as an example) $50,000 for a degree that has few openings, or no existing positions that actually require that degree, then the degree is just a 'I put the time in' piece of paper. Not everybody is cut out for retail, and a great number of the seasonal jobs are actually worked by people as a second job to supplement their Holiday spending. We are a high tourism area. Summer/fall is a busy time of year for us, and when kids are out of school, they like to work part time for spending money. Unfortunately, it seems they all want part time during the day, and that doesn't cover other than the 11am-3pm and no Saturdays.
Not getting 2,100 hours a year in pay is in my experience, actually more widespread than just retail. A car factory near where I lived had three shifts for 7 or 8 months then sent all the contract workers home for a few months and ran two shifts. This depended on the demand for the cars, which was higher at certain times of the year. This in turn affected demand for all the various components, paint, you name it.
A lot depends on the industry. There are a number of industries, especially now, that are in desperate need of employees. You may have to change what you do, but the restaurants, the lumber yards, the retail and Health care industries are will to pay sign on bonuses, retention bonuses, referral bonuses in this area. If someone doesn't have a job right now, it's because they don't want one.
That is good news! It means both parties failed: the Democrats in 2021 to flood the country with cheap labor from Central America, and G W Bush in his two terms, running up a war debt of 7 trillion dollars, to bankrupt the country.
I do have a positive suggestion - call in the exterminators to rid the capital building of lobbyists.
How does government implement such a doctrine? Isn't that up to the business owner? If your subjective morals are so outraged, why not start social businesses? Your rulers even provide you the means to incorporate in that way with a B-Corp.
No, not true. In the Cincinnati labor market, fast-food workers make more than warehouse workers, because warehouse workers are dime-a-dozen, but fast-food workers are not. Fast-food only profits if workers show up on time all the time and stay the entire shift, plus work the entire shift instead of playing with their smart phones. Since the younger people won't do that, fast-food needs older more mature workers who will, except minimum wage isn't enough to make it worth their while. Pay a higher wage, and they'll consider it, because maybe they want extra cash to pay down credit cards, pay off the car note early, save money for vacation, put their kids in a private school or just save money for retirement. In a fast-food restaurant around here, you're lucky to see one person under age 30 working there.
So, since your response provides no actual information in regards to minimum wage workers, let me rephrase my statement. If someone only makes minimum wage, regardless of what dollar amount that minimum wage is, they are still only making minimum wage. That means they are still on the bottom of the wage ladder, regardless of the industry they are employed in.
Well it is more comfortable to blame Reagan and Thatcher than ourselves I suppose. Our individual retirement plans that took off under Reagan, our Robinhood accounts--it is all to blame. To make stocks more attractive to would be investors when the number of said investors have become exponential compared to what they were before Reagan means companies' focus has shifted from labor to investors. For our homes as investments to increase in value, there must be homeless people. The more it increases, the more homeless there are. For us to retire at 55 or 60 and live the Bravo TV lifestyle, then there are going to be people who have to work three jobs at minimum wage to produce those profits for our 401K's and robinhood accounts. For us to buy things at Walmart at or below production costs means the producers will be screwed. The list goes on and on and on.
I've learned a little since writing that bit about neoliberalism. Neoliberalism doesn't have to work out badly, but it usually does because the rich and greedy run the system. The element of greed and other aspects of morality make the difference between a wonderful life and hell. It isn't just the system; it's also the people who run it.
Of course, they probably wouldn't have to raise the minimum wage in the first place if they were not continuously creating inflation. $10 in 1990 would be the equivalent of $22 today. $2 in 1970 would be the equivalent of $15 today.
