Minimum Wage [On Topic]

[gowlerk 2,191]

17 minutes ago, rifleman said:

The only people who benefit from the taxpayers' support of employees are the corporations, their CEO's and their shareholders.

That's not completely true. We all benefit from low wage service industry workers in the form of lower prices. We all shop at Walmart and Amazon, eat at fast food restaurants and we love taking low cost Ubers. Even lower middle class people like truck drivers (myself) benefit from these efficient low cost services. These companies are successful because they give us what we want at a price we can afford. Blaming CEOs for doing their jobs properly is not really helpful. 

Minimum wages are just a single tool in the box of social policies that govern how wealth is distributed. I have little sympathy for business owners who argue that they will not be able to continue with higher wages. That is, as long as everyone including their competitors is on a level playing field. The exception to that rule is if wages are so high that they push then push people more into the underground economy than they already are.

The Federal minimum wage in a country as large as the US is a very blunt tool. It cannot allow for the vast differences in cost of living by location. But economic theory would have us believe that this will eventually cause the population to move around. But only after a large amount of suffering by individuals. Society is complex and finding ways of lifting the fortunes of those at the bottom without discouraging working for a living is difficult. Minimum wage increases look like an excellent tool to increase the incentive to work. Both the right and left should have powerful reasons to embrace them.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That's not completely true. We all benefit from low wage service industry workers in the form of lower prices. We all shop at Walmart and Amazon, eat at fast food restaurants and we love taking low cost Ubers. Even lower middle class people like truck drivers (myself) benefit from these efficient low cost services. These companies are successful because they give us what we want at a price we can afford. Blaming CEOs for doing their jobs properly is not really helpful. 

Minimum wages are just a single tool in the box of social policies that govern how wealth is distributed. I have little sympathy for business owners who argue that they will not be able to continue with higher wages. That is, as long as everyone including their competitors is on a level playing field. The exception to that rule is if wages are so high that they push then push people more into the underground economy than they already are.

The Federal minimum wage in a country as large as the US is a very blunt tool. It cannot allow for the vast differences in cost of living by location. But economic theory would have us believe that this will eventually cause the population to move around. But only after a large amount of suffering by individuals. Society is complex and finding ways of lifting the fortunes of those at the bottom without discouraging working for a living is difficult. Minimum wage increases look like an excellent tool to increase the incentive to work. Both the right and left should have powerful reasons to embrace them.

Right. Let's just add a meaningful but basic social safety net that could benefit any companies workers thus leveling the playing field. Again, basic health insurance (that also serves as occupational health insurance), basic no fault auto insurance (and hog tie the lawyers from both government programs with tort reform) and basic post high school college or trade school training. Then low wage workers are less of a burden or risk to potential employers and, along with gig economy workers, have a shot at moving up in the economy. 

[gowlerk 2,191]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Right. Let's just add a meaningful but basic social safety net that could benefit any companies workers thus leveling the playing field. Again, basic health insurance (that also serves as occupational health insurance), basic no fault auto insurance (and hog tie the lawyers from both government programs with tort reform) and basic post high school college or trade school training. Then low wage workers are less of a burden or risk to potential employers and, along with gig economy workers, have a shot at moving up in the economy. 

I can't really understand why the US holds on to it's system of employer provided health insurance. Except of course because of entrenched financial interests and large amounts of lobby dollars. The inefficiencies and inequities caused are just huge. Yet somehow the US has the most vigorous and overall attractive economy in the world. I believe it could be even better, but maybe fear of losing your healthcare is a major driver. IDK.

Edited July 22, 2019 by gowlerk

[BIGUN 1,311]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

The minimum wage was set in 2009 at $7.25.  Increase it to $9 to match inflation, then increase it 10% a year until it reaches $15 per hour equivalent

C'mon, Bill. Nice try. That's what was just passed. It doesn't work outside the east and west coast.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by BIGUN

[JoeWeber 2,720]

28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

C'mon, Bill. Nice try. That's what was just passed. It doesn't work outside the east and west coast.  

Kieth, it seems to me that if there were a basic social safety net in place, as I posited above, then it would be easier to argue that the minimum wage number should be based on local conditions.

[BIGUN 1,311]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

basic social safety net in place, as I posited above, then it would be easier to argue that the minimum wage number should be based on local conditions.

Joe, 

Admittedly, I liked what you said above. My s/o provides health insurance. That makes the total labor burden at 31% over the minimum wage. Without drifting too far out of topic. I think one major thing the Dems are overlooking that would help with a social healthcare program is if the Government fixed the VA Health system and then used that as a model to point to before creating a litany of other MediocreCare for all programs. I suggested this to Obama when they first started talking about healthcare for all. [back On Topic] But, even then; would we be swapping the costs of health insurance to a social medicine tax as a factor of labor burden which would still hurt small businesses with a mandated minimum wage?        

Keith 

Edited July 22, 2019 by BIGUN

[JoeWeber 2,720]

4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Joe, 

Admittedly, I liked what you said above. My s/o provides health insurance. That makes the total labor burden at 31% over the minimum wage. Without drifting too far out of topic. I think one major thing the Dems are overlooking that would help with a social healthcare program is if the Government fixed the VA Health system and then used that as a model to point to before creating a litany of other MediocreCare for all programs. I suggested this to Obama when they first started talking about healthcare for all. [back On Topic] But, even then; would we be swapping the costs of health insurance to a social medicine tax as a factor of labor burden which would still hurt small businesses with a mandated minimum wage?        

Keith 

Kieth,

I'm all for fixing the VA Health system and I'd start by creating far fewer patients to clog an already overcrowded system. But that's it's own thing and I don't think creating a basic social safety net package as a foundation for addressing working poverty in America should be dependent on solving that problem.

You are absolutely right that a minimum wage number in one location may not be the right number elsewhere. I say we should, in a basic but humane way, simply take away the danger of being alive and breathing, remove risk from the absolute necessity of driving your car to work and your kids to school and also through educational opportunities make easier the task of finding a way to improve your circumstance beyond a locally decided minimum pay.

Gotta start somewhere.

Joe

 

 

 

[billvon 2,991]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

C'mon, Bill. Nice try. That's what was just passed. It doesn't work outside the east and west coast.  

It works to reduce the most emergent problem of not being able to live on what you make.  As I have mentioned before, it is not the best way to solve the problem, nor is it even solving the right problem.  But if your only tool anyone is willing to entertain is a minimum wage, it's a reasonable answer.

[BIGUN 1,311]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

As I have mentioned before, it is not the best way to solve the problem, nor is it even solving the right problem. 

I agree. 

[billvon 2,991]

7 hours ago, rifleman said:

The main problem as I see it, is that corporations like Amazon and Walmart aren't paying a living wage to their employees (when they could easily do so) and are using the taxpayer's money to subsidise their profits. When employees claim food stamps and other benefits, it's not the employee that's making anything from it. If they were paid a living wage then they wouldn't need taxpayer support and might even be able to save a little. The only people who benefit from the taxpayers' support of employees are the corporations, their CEO's and their shareholders.

And Coreece (as he mentions above.)

The biggest villain in all of this is . . . us.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow people refused to shop at any place that paid their employees poorly, much of this problem would be gone in a month.

(Almost) no one is willing to do that.  They will give you a million reasons for it, but they all boil down to "I don't want to pay more."  The reason that we unfortunately have to look to the government for such solutions is that only a solution that affects everyone relatively equally (i.e. gives no one an economic incentive to pay less) is workable in such a market based system.  This is not because _companies_ necessarily want to pay employees less.  As I mentioned, if customers supported higher pay, higher pay would come - because paying more would result in companies making more money.  That doesn't generally happen now because a basic tenet of capitalism is "spend as little as possible on stuff."

 

[kallend 2,027]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

And Coreece (as he mentions above.)

The biggest villain in all of this is . . . us.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow people refused to shop at any place that paid their employees poorly, much of this problem would be gone in a month.

(Almost) no one is willing to do that.  They will give you a million reasons for it, but they all boil down to "I don't want to pay more." 

Nearest grocery/general merchandise store to me is a Wal-Mart.  I won't shop there.  Fortunately we have two family owned stores not far away, which are a little more expensive but a much nicer shopping experience.

 

Edited to add - the families in question are local, not the Waltons.

Edited July 23, 2019 by kallend

[rifleman 70]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

And Coreece (as he mentions above.)

The biggest villain in all of this is . . . us.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow people refused to shop at any place that paid their employees poorly, much of this problem would be gone in a month.

(Almost) no one is willing to do that.  They will give you a million reasons for it, but they all boil down to "I don't want to pay more."  The reason that we unfortunately have to look to the government for such solutions is that only a solution that affects everyone relatively equally (i.e. gives no one an economic incentive to pay less) is workable in such a market based system.  This is not because _companies_ necessarily want to pay employees less.  As I mentioned, if customers supported higher pay, higher pay would come - because paying more would result in companies making more money.  That doesn't generally happen now because a basic tenet of capitalism is "spend as little as possible on stuff."

 

I'm not arguing against the human tendency to want things for less - I'm Scottish by ancestry and Yorkshire by upbringing which makes me one of the tightest fisted people on the face of the planet - I'm simply saying that people like Jeff Bezos and his shareholders could take the hit in reduced dividends and profits without adding more than a couple of hours to the time needed to purchase his next superyacht. 

This simple illustration of the differences between employees and the people running companies like Amazon and Walmart happens when you convert salaries into seconds of time.

Average UK wage £24,600 pa = 6hrs 50min

£1 million = 1.6 weeks

£1 billion = 31.6 years

Edited July 23, 2019 by rifleman
Clarification of point.

[BIGUN 1,311]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

The biggest villain in all of this is . . . us.  You can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow people refused to shop at any place that paid their employees poorly, much of this problem would be gone in a month.

(Almost) no one is willing to do that.  They will give you a million reasons for it, but they all boil down to "I don't want to pay more."  The reason that we unfortunately have to look to the government for such solutions is that only a solution that affects everyone relatively equally (i.e. gives no one an economic incentive to pay less) is workable in such a market based system.  This is not because _companies_ necessarily want to pay employees less.  As I mentioned, if customers supported higher pay, higher pay would come - because paying more would result in companies making more money.  That doesn't generally happen now because a basic tenet of capitalism is "spend as little as possible on stuff."

Exactly what I meant by "Cheap-Ass customer" in an earlier post.  

[Coreece 190]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

You can bet your bottom dollar that if tomorrow people refused to shop at any place that paid their employees poorly, much of this problem would be gone in a month.

So basically that would mean to stop shopping at practicality every family/locally owned  grocer and dollar store for paying their employees the bare ass minimum wage they possibly can and charging the highest prices, and start shopping at Walmart that offers higher wages and lower prices.

But let's say that even Walmart's $14-15/hr still isn't enough for stocking and bagging groceries, so we all just stop buying food until those wages go up.  That might work out well for Walmart.  They'll increases wages and offer even more rollback sales to bring customers back in, but now the pay structure would be so ridiculous that the local/family stores couldn't even compete anymore, so they all close up, and maybe we start seeing a bunch of little Walmart Express shops popping up in their place.  They might as well even take over all the gas station-convenience stores while they're at it.

 

16 hours ago, billvon said:

(Almost) no one is willing to do that.  They will give you a million reasons for it, but they all boil down to "I don't want to pay more." 

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Exactly what I meant by "Cheap-Ass customer" in an earlier post.

Cheap-ass customers that don't want to pay more are typically those that can't afford to pay more.

Even tho my cheap ass shops at 5 local family stores looking for the best deals in town, I'm still paying more than I would at Walmart in the next town over.  But ya, I'll stop in there every once in awhile when I'm in town, especially when the mom n' pop shops feel like slapping their loyal customers across the face a couple times a year.  It was disturbing a few years back when nobody bought their overpriced corn, not even the spoiled rich kids.  Two weeks later you could see the minimum wage workers throwing it all in the garbage.  Assholes.

This is the same place that bought up the competition like 10 years ago or so and just let the building rot until the city finally said that this is a tourist destination and everyone's tired of seeing your abandoned bullshit eyesore right in the middle of town just because you're a bunch of greedy assholes - so either do something with it, or sell it to Roger.

Anyway, I just think it's a shitty cop-out to blame the customers and call them cheap, because it's so easy to do:  Do you own a computer and use the internet?   Then you're part of the problem because those things makes it easier and cheaper to get shit done.  Have you ever shopped online or used streaming media services?   Then you're destroying brick and mortar!  Are you trying to cut back on your consumption, do you have a windmill, use solar panels, drink groundwater, grow your own vegetables, shop at second hand thrift shops and own stuff made in China or Mexico?  Then you're just a cheap ass, penny-pinching, job killing son of a bitch!  Other people need that money you know!

Edited July 23, 2019 by Coreece
Edited to correct quote attribution

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

So basically that would mean to stop shopping at practicality every family/locally owned  grocer and dollar store for paying their employees the bare ass minimum wage they possibly can and charging the highest prices, and start shopping at Walmart that offers higher wages and lower prices.

 

No.  Shop at ANY store that pays better wages.  If that's Wal-Mart great; if it's the local store (which is often is) then that's what you choose.  And if Wal-Mart wants your business back, they raise their wages.

Quote

Cheap-ass customers that don't want to pay more are typically those that can't afford to pay more.

Everyone has a choice, even you.  We all choose what we want.  If cheap beer is important to us, we buy it.  If we'd prefer to pay more for food and perhaps forego beer for the month, then that's a choice we can make too.

Quote

Anyway, I just think it's a shitty cop-out to blame the customers and call them cheap, because it's so easy to do . . .

And because it is, in fact, true.  In the retail economy, the consumers are in charge.  They determine who succeeds and who fails, and if their decisions are based on how companies treat their employees, then how they treat their employees will determine who succeeds and who fails.

Now, you can say "I don't want to be responsible for that (or I think people can't be responsible for that) so pass a law!"  And that's fine; socialism works for a lot of things, including minimum wage.  But just understand that you are choosing that over individual choices.

[Coreece 190]

22 hours ago, billvon said:

On 7/23/2019 at 4:56 PM, Coreece said:

So basically that would mean to stop shopping at practicality every family/locally owned  grocer and dollar store for paying their employees the bare ass minimum wage they possibly can and charging the highest prices, and start shopping at Walmart that offers higher wages and lower prices.

No.  Shop at ANY store that pays better wages.  If that's Wal-Mart great; if it's the local store (which is often is) then that's what you choose.

Up here that would mean shopping exclusively at Walmart, but that's due to their corporate-wide wage increase just this past year.  Prior to that they were pretty much on par with everybody else paying at or near state minimums.  It may be a bit different elsewhere, but that wage increase certainly puts them closer to the top - and with Amazon's wage increase to $15/hr, Walmart is likely to follow suit and has already expressed as much - so I think all the outrage for these two outlets is a bit outdated.

And one good reason that such an efficient, reasonable and fair system exists for EVERYONE including those in remote rural areas is because of the disciplined spending habits of frugal "cheap-ass" customers.  If it was up to thriftless behavior of the rich and wasteful we'd all have to pay 2-5X more than what it's really worth to the vast majority.  It kind of reminds me a little bit of our fucked-up healthcare system, but that's a different beast altogether.

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

Up here that would mean shopping exclusively at Walmart, but that's due to their corporate-wide wage increase just this past year.  Prior to that they were pretty much on par with everybody else paying at or near state minimums.  It may be a bit different elsewhere, but that wage increase certainly puts them closer to the top . . .

A few stores around here:

Wal-Mart minimum $11/hr (Note - San Diego's minimum wage of $12/hr overrides this)

Target min $13/hr

Trader Joe's min $13.29/hr

Whole Foods min $15/hr

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

A few stores around here:

Wal-Mart minimum $11/hr (Note - San Diego's minimum wage of $12/hr overrides this)

Target min $13/hr

Trader Joe's min $13.29/hr

Whole Foods min $15/hr

Around here:

Wal-Mart - $11/hr

Roger's - $9.45/hr

Louie's - $9.45/hr

Glenn's - $9.45/hr

Nobody knows what happened to Lenny. . .

[jclalor 12]

The current economic model is unsustainable for this country, the rich can only get so rich and the poor can only get so poor. The “trickle down” economy has been a proven failure after almost 40 years and yet we’re still promised that prosperity for all is just one tax cut away. Any business that can not provide a livable wage does not belong in business. 

[airdvr 210]

I have several FB friends who are approaching the top earner mark.  They are business owners who have employees.  They will never increase the overall salaries of their employees without someone forcing them.  They cry about minimum wage as they sit on their boats and drink martinis and talk about their vacations.  It makes me ill sometimes.

[Rick 67]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

They will never increase the overall salaries of their employees without someone forcing them

I would have thought the low unemployment rate would make it more of a workers market. When you have to compete with other businesses for employees benefits and salaries should go up.

[Coreece 190]

7 hours ago, jclalor said:

Any business that can not provide a livable wage does not belong in business. 

The problem is that a livable wage varies dramatically depending on marital status, the size of your family and where you live.

If we're going to have a national flat rate minimum, then it only makes sense to base it on the minimum livable wage for a single adult, which for most places seems to be around $11/hr according to the living wage calculator that Keith posted earlier.  Obviously it's going to be higher in a few other places, but that's why states can adjust it as needed, or you can just get a roommate or sleep on the couch like a normal person trying to make it big in LA or NY.

 

16 minutes ago, Rick said:

20 minutes ago, airdvr said:

They will never increase the overall salaries of their employees without someone forcing them

I would have thought the low unemployment rate would make it more of a workers market. When you have to compete with other businesses for employees benefits and salaries should go up. 

Overall I think that's what we are starting to see even in rural areas where wages are increasing on their own beyond mandated minimums.  It's only a matter of time when Airdvr's FB friends will be forced to raise wages by other competing companies rather than the government.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 7/21/2019 at 8:11 AM, BIGUN said:

107% is a bit much (even over a five-year incremental increase).

Is it really a 5-year period though? Or is that just counted from when the first increase is mandated? Probably should count from the last time an increase was implemented. If companies had kept track with a simple and affordable Cost of Living increase to match inflation, it likely wouldn't be 107%. For many of these small businesses revenues and profits have likely increased over that time period, with none or limited sharing with employees.

[headoverheels 333]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Is it really a 5-year period though? Or is that just counted from when the first increase is mandated? Probably should count from the last time an increase was implemented. If companies had kept track with a simple and affordable Cost of Living increase to match inflation, it likely wouldn't be 107%. For many of these small businesses revenues and profits have likely increased over that time period, with none or limited sharing with employees.

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since I was working for minimum wage 50 years ago, it would be just under $12/hr.

[billvon 2,991]

On 7/25/2019 at 3:55 PM, headoverheels said:

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since I was working for minimum wage 50 years ago, it would be just under $12/hr.

That would be a good alternative to propose, along with a link to the cost of living so that we don't have to fight over this every 10 years.