$15/hour min. wage?

[DawnM]

Can we discuss this without getting political?  

 

What are your thoughts?  Can it be done?  Would businesses have to hire fewer people?  Is it really necessary to have a min. wage dictated by the Federal Government, or should it be by region, dictated more by COL area?

 

 

[Lanny]

One result of that will probably eventually be more that more Robots are deployed by employers, to do routine repetitive tasks. .  Businesses that operate on a very low profit margin will need to raise their prices or go out of business.  And yes I believe that the Minimum Wage should be higher, in high COL areas than in low COL areas.  

 

Looking at the cost of renting an apartment in the Washington DC area, temporarily, for one year, last night, for our friends who will be TDY there, starting in May 2017,  has me wondering how anyone making $15 an hour could live in/near Washington DC.   They would need to live at home, with their parents, or share an apartment with multiple people and split the rent.

 

No easy solutions to complex issues... 

[Chris in VA]

From a rather selfish point of view--

 

It irks the crap out of me that people who do nothing more than stand at a cash register and take an order (thinking McD's, not waiters and such) will get paid the same as a preschool teacher who has a degree and spends extra hours planning, designing curricula and making materials, and conferencing with parents. I am not saying cashiers don't work hard--it is hard physically to stand there for hours and hard mentally to deal with people. But the jobs are not equal in my mind, and I do not think they should get paid basically the same amount. 

 

I don't know what to do about that, frankly, just saying how I feel. 

 

I don't believe people who get paid higher wages will necessarily pay more for things like child care, either. 

[Zinnia]

I'm not in a position where I hire people or manage a payroll (never have been; likely never will be).

 

My brother manages a plant in a small town.  The average pay for the plant workers is $8.50.  He is convinced that anything higher would kill the company.  It is part of the automotive supply chain, and margins aren't huge, so perhaps he is right.  I'm not really sure.  

 

He does live in an area with one of the highest poverty rates in the state (40% of people live in poverty), and while it's not wonderful, people can and do live on $8.50 an hour, especially in a household with multiple earners.  He never has trouble finding people willing to work for the $8.50, and they are not the people that tend to staff the most dangerous/undesireable jobs.  In our area, those jobs go to mostly English learner immigrants and refugees (things like chicken plants and migrant farm work).  He is able to hire high school graduates from the local schools.  He *is* usually frustrated by their lack of critical thinking skills and their lack of motivation/drive/what-have-you.  It is a constant argument between him and me that he sees this as unrelated to the $8.50 wage, and i think that it explains it very well.  I don't see "barely making it" as motivating for anything but continuing to barely make it.  He sees it the opposite.  Which convinces me that world view plays heavily into this discussion.

[TravelingChris]

My son makes less than this and started out making much less than this.  The cost to this area would be huge if the minimum wage was 15.  We are in a low cost area and people who make less than that can live a decent life.  My son makes less than 15 dollars an hour and lives in a safe apartment, has internet, pays for his car, eats carefully but fairly healthy, and has money to spend on his hobby and some amusements.  Substitute teachers here make 10 an hour (which is the biggest reason I never considered being a substitute teacher).  So no, I am not in favor of a national raise to 15.

[HomeAgain]

Here is a minimum wage chart showing the progress over the years both in the value of the currency used then and in 2012.  When the minimum wage was raised by Kennedy in 1960, he had good reasoning behind it.  I would quote, but the entire piece is just as valid today and reducing it to a quip would do it injustice.

 

Given this, I don't see that shorting people because 'so-in-so's occupation doesn't make more than that" is good for the country.  It's not a healthy way of thinking and instead points to a childish method of settling spats instead of looking at the true need. I think raising the value of those jobs would help, too.  I also think that companies who have a certain percentage of their payroll on government doles should have some sort of negative consequence.  They're cheating the country twice, first by the individuals who need to have an income and second by the country who is paying their taxes to cover the shortfall.

 

 

[DawnM]

My son makes less than this and started out making much less than this.  The cost to this area would be huge if the minimum wage was 15.  We are in a low cost area and people who make less than that can live a decent life.  My son makes less than 15 dollars an hour and lives in a safe apartment, has internet, pays for his car, eats carefully but fairly healthy, and has money to spend on his hobby and some amusements.  Substitute teachers here make 10 an hour (which is the biggest reason I never considered being a substitute teacher).  So no, I am not in favor of a national raise to 15.

 

Substitute teaching STINKS!  Even though our subs make almost double $10/hour (based on a 6 hour day......I think they make $110 per day) but they get NO benefits, no healthcare, and no retirement.

 

Even a first year teacher here make more than double that, if you include benefits.  

 

It is hard to get subs here.  Sometimes no one even shows up.   

[arnold]

This

 

From a rather selfish point of view--

 

It irks the crap out of me that people who do nothing more than stand at a cash register and take an order (thinking McD's, not waiters and such) will get paid the same as a preschool teacher who has a degree and spends extra hours planning, designing curricula and making materials, and conferencing with parents. I am not saying cashiers don't work hard--it is hard physically to stand there for hours and hard mentally to deal with people. But the jobs are not equal in my mind, and I do not think they should get paid basically the same amount.

 

I don't know what to do about that, frankly, just saying how I feel.

 

I don't believe people who get paid higher wages will necessarily pay more for things like child care, either.

[The Girls' Mom]

In a state like mine, I know it would probably kill small business.  We live in a low cost of living area.  There isn't enough money floating around here to pay everyone $15 an hour.  Factoring in our area, our economy, it just does not make sense to pay someone $15 an hour to stand behind a cash register. It would be lovely if that were the case, but a whole lot of other factors really would need to change across the board.

 

Just last night I was working on a spreadsheet for my young adult daughter to show her a budget and how much she would need to make an hour in order to live on her own.  Right now, she could do it for right at $10 an hour, full time, if she rented a modest apartment. If she had a roommate, she could make it on even less.  I know that amount wouldn't support someone in many other places, but it does here.  

[OnMyOwn]

From a rather selfish point of view--

 

It irks the crap out of me that people who do nothing more than stand at a cash register and take an order (thinking McD's, not waiters and such) will get paid the same as a preschool teacher who has a degree and spends extra hours planning, designing curricula and making materials, and conferencing with parents. I am not saying cashiers don't work hard--it is hard physically to stand there for hours and hard mentally to deal with people. But the jobs are not equal in my mind, and I do not think they should get paid basically the same amount.

 

I don't know what to do about that, frankly, just saying how I feel.

 

I don't believe people who get paid higher wages will necessarily pay more for things like child care, either.

Yes, this is something I wonder about. Would artificially raising wages for one group actually wind up devaluaing the wages of people making above minimum wage? Wages go up, business costs go up, prices rise and everyone who is making more than the minimum wage has just received a pay cut. And do people now making the new minimum wage struggle just as much after a couple of years themselves because of price increases or more difficulty in obtaining employment?

[creekland]

Substitute teaching STINKS!  Even though our subs make almost double $10/hour (based on a 6 hour day......I think they make $110 per day) but they get NO benefits, no healthcare, and no retirement.

 

Even a first year teacher here make more than double that, if you include benefits.  

 

It is hard to get subs here.  Sometimes no one even shows up.   

 

Hey, hey, hey...  Some of us do it because we love the job, the kids, and part time.

 

I certainly don't do it for the money or benefits.  ;)  Actually, though, we get retirement if we're here enough years (matching retirement benefits).

 

Should the minimum wage be higher?  That totally depends upon the COL in an area IMO.  A minimum wage should be enough to live in a given area when working full time.

 

I'm perfectly ok with someone behind a fast food counter getting paid as much as I do if they do their job well.  We all have different niches in life and I'm glad someone does that one.  I wouldn't want their job for twice as much as I make.  We tip WELL for those who do their job well trying to make up for low pay in some jobs (maids, food service, etc).

[SproutMamaK]

I feel like there needs to be a higher minimum wage, but that while the STANDARDS for minimum wage should be nationalized, the AMOUNT should not. As in "here's a calculation to determine the basic amount people need to live in your area, divide that by X hours we are willing to demand that people work in order to survive, here's the minimum wage for your area." The problem is that the amount dictated by that would vary so greatly. In order for it to be effective the minimum wage wouldn't end up being national, or even state-wide... it would probably have to vary by county, which leads to a whole lot of bureaucratic red tape. It *would* encourage businesses to move out of high COL areas in to other areas, which could have huge and unpredictable ripple effects.

[OneStepAtATime]

I feel like there needs to be a higher minimum wage, but that while the STANDARDS for minimum wage should be nationalized, the AMOUNT should not. As in "here's a calculation to determine the basic amount people need to live in your area, divide that by X hours we are willing to demand that people work in order to survive, here's the minimum wage for your area." The problem is that the amount dictated by that would vary so greatly. In order for it to be effective the minimum wage wouldn't end up being national, or even state-wide... it would probably have to vary by county, which leads to a whole lot of bureaucratic red tape. It *would* encourage businesses to move out of high COL areas in to other areas, which could have huge and unpredictable ripple effects.

:iagree:

[mom2scouts]

My son works at a company that makes industrial robots. He says that many minimum wage jobs can *easily* be replaced by robots. The technology already exists. He noted that McDonald's is starting to convert to robots and they are starting in all the areas that are raising minimum wage. When low skill jobs jump to $15/hour wages, it's profitable to use robots. Fast food workers protesting for $15/hour, especially in low cost of living areas like mine where professionals often don't make a whole lot more than that, are protesting themselves right out of a job!

[Wheres Toto]

I don't buy a minimum wage increase irrevocably hurting companies like Walmart, etc. where the CEOs are making millions (billions?) of dollars a year.  That's crap.  But maybe exceptions need to be made for small businesses or those with smaller profit margins?

I think there might be in an increase in automation, hiring of less workers initially but I think in a lot of service areas it will hurt business enough that they'll bring people back.   I've seen it already in some businesses around here.

 

I do think that it makes more sense for the minimum wage to be adjusted for COL.  I wonder if there is a way to do that mathematically so that the federal standard could be that minimum wage needs to be at least x% of....something.  Not sure what that something could be, it's been a long time since I took economics.

[Bluegoat]

It might affect business hiring  - that's where globalism gets us.

 

 

But, jobs that don't pay for themselves also have negative repercussions.  Poverty. The state having to supplement people's wages (and we then blame them for working in low paying jobs and being leeches on the public purse.)

 

I think a state by state min wage might be most sensible, but perhaps based on a central federal formula.  Here in Canada, it's provincial.

 

One good effect of mandating a fair minimum wage is that it means that employers who would like to pair a fair wage aren't dragged down by those who don't care.

 

Replacing jobs with robots is an issue, but not I think best addressed by treating employees like machines by underpaying them.

 

[Bambam]

I've never understood people thinking that simply raising the minimum wage will improve people's situation.

First - companies are in business to make a profit. Big or small, that is what companies do. If they don't make a profit, they go out of business.

How to make a profit = Sales - expenses must be positive. If not, you are loosing money. If your expenses (wages you must pay your employees goes up), you *must* raise your prices or somehow become more efficient so you can make your product at a lower cost to offset the expense increase due to wages. So, raise prices, sell a cheaper product, eliminate workers, or find some way to reduce your production costs greatly (which you've probably already done because we have a market driven economy and if you have competitors, you've probably already been working on that).

 

My understanding was that minimum wage jobs were originally meant for beginning workers with the expectation they would go on to better jobs. 

 

My experience --- if you raise minimum wage,  then the next lower section of wage earners will need their salaries raised too, and on up the ladder we go. Because I've seen this with a major company I worked for. And if you are raising all those wages, again the business needs to make money, so they will have to raise their prices. It may be slow, but it will happen. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

From a rather selfish point of view--

 

It irks the crap out of me that people who do nothing more than stand at a cash register and take an order (thinking McD's, not waiters and such) will get paid the same as a preschool teacher who has a degree and spends extra hours planning, designing curricula and making materials, and conferencing with parents. I am not saying cashiers don't work hard--it is hard physically to stand there for hours and hard mentally to deal with people. But the jobs are not equal in my mind, and I do not think they should get paid basically the same amount. 

 

I don't know what to do about that, frankly, just saying how I feel. 

 

I don't believe people who get paid higher wages will necessarily pay more for things like child care, either. 

 

Childcare workers are grossly underpaid.

[OnMyOwn]

Childcare workers are grossly underpaid.

True, but childcare costs are already more than what many families can afford.

[Nart]

California lawmakers passed a 15 dollar minimum wage this year. It is being gradually phased in the until 2022 for business over 25 employees and 2023 for business with 25 employees or less. Here is the phase in chart showing the gradual increase:

http://www.govdocs.com/california-15-statewide-minimum-wage/

The first issues that come to mind is the cost of living varies tremendously in California. Apartmentlist website shows that from their listings the average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in California is around 2,000 dollars. The range is huge- in San Francisco it is over 4,000, Los Angeles 2700, and Fresno and Bakersfield it is only 840 dollars a month. 15 dollar min. Wage makes sense in high cost urban areas but doesn't really in low cost of living areas.

While I am pleased that many people will be able to raise their standard of living, I think the people who are going to be hurt are those now making 15 to 20 dollars an hour. Many of those jobs you need college or vocational training, so now what is the incentive to go further your education if someone who didnt finish high school can earn the same amount? They are not getting a raise but their cost of living just got more expensive because their babysitters, preschools, summer camps just got more expensive. It will cost more for a cup of coffee or take out meal.

[Guest]

It would make more sense to reduce property taxes. That would lower rent to affordable.

I would also like to see boarding houses legally return. That would lower the amount needing services, which would lower taxes.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[snowbeltmom]

The local market should determine the minimum wage, not the federal government. 

 

We own a small business and live in a low cost of living area.  A $15 minimum wage would force us to reduce our work force.  Other small businesses would be forced to do the same in order to stay in business.  We are already seeing a lot of service industries replace workers with computers.  Our local grocery store has drastically reduced the amount of workers in the deli.  Now, I can place my order via computer when I arrive at the grocery store and pick up my order before I leave.  These machines are also in our local Panera stores.

 

If this $15 minimum wage is implemented, more workers will end up in the unemployment line.

[Lanny]

Reading some responses other than mine here, to have a a Minimum Wage based on the COL in a local area, would in some states be one that covers the entire state and in other places, county by county. The U.S. Government has a chart for workers who travel on their jobs and get Per Diem for temporary living costs. Here's a URL for that:  http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877   When I worked, on temporary contract assignments, I went by that chart, when I quoted an hourly rate for an assignment out of town, because I had to pay my own expenses.

 

They would need to calculate the COL in each area, to have a Minimum Wage particular to that area.  That can be done, but as others have noted, might lead to companies fleeing high COL areas for low COL areas.

 

If the workers in the Carrier plant in Indianapolis are going to receive average hourly wages of $30.97, in a low cost area, one can imagine what they would want in a high COL area.  

[Bluegoat]

I've never understood people thinking that simply raising the minimum wage will improve people's situation.

First - companies are in business to make a profit. Big or small, that is what companies do. If they don't make a profit, they go out of business.

How to make a profit = Sales - expenses must be positive. If not, you are loosing money. If your expenses (wages you must pay your employees goes up), you *must* raise your prices or somehow become more efficient so you can make your product at a lower cost to offset the expense increase due to wages. So, raise prices, sell a cheaper product, eliminate workers, or find some way to reduce your production costs greatly (which you've probably already done because we have a market driven economy and if you have competitors, you've probably already been working on that).

 

My understanding was that minimum wage jobs were originally meant for beginning workers with the expectation they would go on to better jobs. 

 

My experience --- if you raise minimum wage,  then the next lower section of wage earners will need their salaries raised too, and on up the ladder we go. Because I've seen this with a major company I worked for. And if you are raising all those wages, again the business needs to make money, so they will have to raise their prices. It may be slow, but it will happen. 

 

This seems like an odd argument for me - as if workers are not an expense that has a cost to maintain and can just be pushed down to make the bottom line better.

 

If your raw material costs X$ to produce, you have to pay it to get that material.  And, yes, your price will have to reflect that.  But people would think it silly to say "we need to pay less for those materials, even though they still cost the same to produce, just so we can keep the price down.  So we want the price kept down somehow artificially, or government to subsidize the companies that make it. 

 

We might see something like that with a necessary product like food or water or medicine, but it's a very weird argument to make from a free market perspective which is where one usually hears it.

 

It costs a certain amount to maintain an employee, so that is going to be the price of the employee.  If you can't make the costs work at that level, then either the product is unnecessary or you are a bad manager.  If you can't make your widget at a cost that people will accept because your raw materials are just too expensive, it is a product that doesn't need to be made, or you are a bad manager.

 

As an aside, It isn't necessarily true that businesses need to make a profit - it's quite possible to pay everyone without making anything beyond that, and before the modern period that was seen as most proper - profit was seen as morally questionable.  The assumption that profit is necessary for business to work becomes as a justification for underpaying labour, exploiting people,  and environmental destruction.  It might be worth rethinking that idea and how well it serves us.

[Bluegoat]

True, but childcare costs are already more than what many families can afford.

 

Yes.  I think our model for childcare is just unsistainable.

[DawnM]

Hey, hey, hey...  Some of us do it because we love the job, the kids, and part time.

 

I certainly don't do it for the money or benefits.   ;)  Actually, though, we get retirement if we're here enough years (matching retirement benefits).

 

Should the minimum wage be higher?  That totally depends upon the COL in an area IMO.  A minimum wage should be enough to live in a given area when working full time.

 

I'm perfectly ok with someone behind a fast food counter getting paid as much as I do if they do their job well.  We all have different niches in life and I'm glad someone does that one.  I wouldn't want their job for twice as much as I make.  We tip WELL for those who do their job well trying to make up for low pay in some jobs (maids, food service, etc).

 

I am on your side!   I am saying you should get paid MORE.   No one could make it on that salary alone.

 

In my previous district, you COULD get benefits if you worked X number of days per year.  That should be everywhere.

[Bluegoat]

With differentiated min wage, movement of jobs and people tends to work both ways - there is a tension.  LCOL might seem nice, but often high wages are found in more expensive areas.  And areas with lower wages have to keep that within limits to attract workers or they will go elsewhere, whatever the cost of living.

[bettyandbob]

Comparing minimum wage to certain jobs that require skill and training, but are grossly underpaid (preschool teacher above) is not useful here. That's a different issue to me. 

 

Possibly it needs to be based on location. I live in NoVa. High cost of living. I do see young people working $12/hour jobs and able to move out. How are they doing that? They are working multiple jobs. They have to. A lot of places won't give full time hours to avoid benefits. So no health insurance, hopefully they stay on their parent's plan until age 26. I do know one 28 yo who gave high praise to ACA  for his insurance. Then, they live with multiple room mates. Not one room mate--at least 2. The ones who are managing the best on their own financially have 3 jobs spread over 7 days a week. Really not a great way to live. And unless you are very strategic about these jobs, there's no way to move up and out of the situation. 

 

Since I work in places that offer some of these crappy wages, I have some ideas about workers not being motivated, not putting in effort etc. It is true some people are lazy and do just enough. However, it is also true some places of employment have no path to better oneself. Why work hard if you will never be promoted or have a chance to do more. Good managers help workers see a path to better. They recognize one way to motivate is help provide that path out:

1. show workers how promotions are made, explain exceptional work leads to supervisory work, which may not pay more, but gives good experience for other promotions. 

2. make opportunities for cross training through the company available. Some jobs may not need skills like knowing how to use microsoft office or other software, but if the training is available, make it available to people in a variety of positions so they can switch job. 

3. give workers predictable schedules and allow them to ask for schedules that fit school or other job training they are doing whether or not it's related to the company. Many employees are grateful for this and will work hard to keep the privilege. 

Basically, if you can't pay more than give the workers opportunities to gain skills so they can have a path. The problem I see is some employers don't want to do this because they don't want workers to eventually leave. That approach just leads to people who feel trapped and don't care to do beyond the minimum to keep the job. 

 

Here's my recent life experience behind my viewpoint:

So, what I do now I started several years back for a few hours a week just to supplement because the kind of work I did before was not going to mesh with homeschooling or give me some of the flexibility I needed for being the parent of a kid with a lifelong disability. I figured eventually I'd get back to one of my old careers. It became clear a couple years ago I wasn't going to be able to do that and that my family really needed income so I increased my hours doing what I do. I'm very good at it and very dependable. I had a boss who took advantage of that. In the job I had there were no raises, ever. So, if you stayed eventually new hires would be paid more because the "starting" pay was raised. I was given a lot of responsibility for training people, but I was stuck. I asked how could I get into hire level jobs or get the skills to get those jobs. I got friendly meaningless responses. For a short time this boss had an assistant manager who saw I was completely underutilized. He found a way for me to get a little training. The boss didn't like that. After the assistant manager left, I reevaluated a few things. The job was incredibly close to my house, but I was so burnt out. I had another job teaching math at an alternative school that gave me so few hours I made significantly less there and was burnt from the injustices to the kids there. I was in a bad place and felt trapped with these jobs. I eventually contacted that person in his new job and he hired me. He gave me a position with enough hours to get partial benefits (I pay a bit for health ins).  I still do some of the same work for higher pay,  but he's also given me more responsibility and projects and sent me to events that are getting me known to other people in our organization. He also tells me whenever he hears of a job opening. Recently, he showed me how to list stuff I've done better, so my applications make it through online sorting. He's pointed out some important skills that I didn't recognize I had. It's going to take time, but I can see a way up. Is my current boss' involvement taking hours of week holding my hand. No. That would be really creepy. And he doesn't have the time. It's more like every few of weeks I get an email or text with a link to a job opening or free training our organization is offering or maybe he tells me something when we pass at work, like last week when he said so-and-so at xyz center got promoted, her job is going to be advertised it would be good for you to apply. So, he tries to keep people like me happy. He knows I will work my butt off for him and that makes him look good. He also tries to keep the high school and college students happy with schedules that meet their school constraints. He knows that if all he offers is $10-15/hour forever and ever people are going to feel trapped and not be the most productive. 

 

Back to the original question I think raising the wage will encourage some employers to go with robots or other automation. Many places have already done that. I think that's fine. I think raising the wage alone is not targeting the issue. I think we haven't addressed how people can continually attain skills to do better jobs over time. People can't start at the bottom and stagnate. People can't start in the middle and stagnate. Over time the skills needed in the workforce change. People needed to be prepared to retrain throughout their lifetime and there needs to be a way for people to easily access retraining. 

 

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

My son works at a company that makes industrial robots. He says that many minimum wage jobs can *easily* be replaced by robots. The technology already exists. He noted that McDonald's is starting to convert to robots and they are starting in all the areas that are raising minimum wage. When low skill jobs jump to $15/hour wages, it's profitable to use robots. Fast food workers protesting for $15/hour, especially in low cost of living areas like mine where professionals often don't make a whole lot more than that, are protesting themselves right out of a job!

And what exactly are we supposed to do with all of the folks working service jobs who are replaced by robots? Let them starve in the streets?

 

I get when a professional might be irked at a service worker making as much as they do but let's face it there are not enough professional jobs for everyone let alone service sector jobs. And for folks saying that McD's jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs and teenage jobs, I disagree since there are only limited manufacturing jobs out (although FTR under Obama 850,000 manufacturing jobs were created) and service sector is a big part of the job market. So I guess I am saying is that we should not diss service workers and begrudge them living wages.

 

Oh and when robots do replace a lot of our jobs our country is going to have to figure out how to give a living wage benefit to those out of work unless we want to live in like Victorian times or something like that. Of course I don't see the right agreeing to that at all.

[Arcadia]

My city already had a few minimum wage increase. Whether the hiring decisions are related to minimum wage or not, we have lots more self checkout at supermarkets, IKEA and less cashiers than before the last minimum pay increase. Our malls have Pepper the robot being tested. Fast food locations who used to have five cashiers now have two counter staff with the floor managers helping when busy. People hire private nannies and babysitters here regardless of minimum wage. Childcare centers cost more than a 8am-6pm nanny per month. Rents go up with previous minimum wage increases though, and rents already go up annually.

 

Below is quoted from a report done by UCB for my county as California is increasing wage to $15. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-effects-of-a-15-minimum-wage-by-2019-in-santa-clara-county-and-the-city-of-san-jose/

"Three industries account for nearly half of the private sector workers getting increases in Santa Clara County: food services (20.2 percent), retail trade (16.1 percent), and administrative and waste management services (11.9 percent).

71 percent of workers in the restaurant industry in the private sector would receive a wage increase, compared to 11.2 percent in manufacturing.

Total wages would increase by 9.5 percent for restaurants and one percent across all employers. This increase is much smaller than the minimum wage increase because many businesses already pay over $15 and many workers who will get pay increases are already paid over the current minimum wage. In addition, the workers who would receive pay increases are the lowest paid workers in Santa Clara County and their wages represent only 6.1 percent of total wages."

 

ETA:

We also have the robots at Lowe's and digital ordering kiosks at McDonald's and Panera Bread.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Arcadia

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Comparing minimum wage to certain jobs that require skill and training, but are grossly underpaid (preschool teacher above) is not useful here. That's a different issue to me. 

 

Possibly it needs to be based on location. I live in NoVa. High cost of living. I do see young people working $12/hour jobs and able to move out. How are they doing that? They are working multiple jobs. They have to. A lot of places won't give full time hours to avoid benefits. So no health insurance, hopefully they stay on their parent's plan until age 26. I do know one 28 yo who gave high praise to ACA  for his insurance. Then, they live with multiple room mates. Not one room mate--at least 2. The ones who are managing the best on their own financially have 3 jobs spread over 7 days a week. Really not a great way to live. And unless you are very strategic about these jobs, there's no way to move up and out of the situation. 

 

Since I work in places that offer some of these crappy wages, I have some ideas about workers not being motivated, not putting in effort etc. It is true some people are lazy and do just enough. However, it is also true some places of employment have no path to better oneself. Why work hard if you will never be promoted or have a chance to do more. Good managers help workers see a path to better. They recognize one way to motivate is help provide that path out:

1. show workers how promotions are made, explain exceptional work leads to supervisory work, which may not pay more, but gives good experience for other promotions. 

2. make opportunities for cross training through the company available. Some jobs may not need skills like knowing how to use microsoft office or other software, but if the training is available, make it available to people in a variety of positions so they can switch job. 

3. give workers predictable schedules and allow them to ask for schedules that fit school or other job training they are doing whether or not it's related to the company. Many employees are grateful for this and will work hard to keep the privilege. 

Basically, if you can't pay more than give the workers opportunities to gain skills so they can have a path. The problem I see is some employers don't want to do this because they don't want workers to eventually leave. That approach just leads to people who feel trapped and don't care to do beyond the minimum to keep the job. 

 

Here's my recent life experience behind my viewpoint:

So, what I do now I started several years back for a few hours a week just to supplement because the kind of work I did before was not going to mesh with homeschooling or give me some of the flexibility I needed for being the parent of a kid with a lifelong disability. I figured eventually I'd get back to one of my old careers. It became clear a couple years ago I wasn't going to be able to do that and that my family really needed income so I increased my hours doing what I do. I'm very good at it and very dependable. I had a boss who took advantage of that. In the job I had there were no raises, ever. So, if you stayed eventually new hires would be paid more because the "starting" pay was raised. I was given a lot of responsibility for training people, but I was stuck. I asked how could I get into hire level jobs or get the skills to get those jobs. I got friendly meaningless responses. For a short time this boss had an assistant manager who saw I was completely underutilized. He found a way for me to get a little training. The boss didn't like that. After the assistant manager left, I reevaluated a few things. The job was incredibly close to my house, but I was so burnt out. I had another job teaching math at an alternative school that gave me so few hours I made significantly less there and was burnt from the injustices to the kids there. I was in a bad place and felt trapped with these jobs. I eventually contacted that person in his new job and he hired me. He gave me a position with enough hours to get partial benefits (I pay a bit for health ins).  I still do some of the same work for higher pay,  but he's also given me more responsibility and projects and sent me to events that are getting me known to other people in our organization. He also tells me whenever he hears of a job opening. Recently, he showed me how to list stuff I've done better, so my applications make it through online sorting. He's pointed out some important skills that I didn't recognize I had. It's going to take time, but I can see a way up. Is my current boss' involvement taking hours of week holding my hand. No. That would be really creepy. And he doesn't have the time. It's more like every few of weeks I get an email or text with a link to a job opening or free training our organization is offering or maybe he tells me something when we pass at work, like last week when he said so-and-so at xyz center got promoted, her job is going to be advertised it would be good for you to apply. So, he tries to keep people like me happy. He knows I will work my butt off for him and that makes him look good. He also tries to keep the high school and college students happy with schedules that meet their school constraints. He knows that if all he offers is $10-15/hour forever and ever people are going to feel trapped and not be the most productive. 

 

Back to the original question I think raising the wage will encourage some employers to go with robots or other automation. Many places have already done that. I think that's fine. I think raising the wage alone is not targeting the issue. I think we haven't addressed how people can continually attain skills to do better jobs over time. People can't start at the bottom and stagnate. People can't start in the middle and stagnate. Over time the skills needed in the workforce change. People needed to be prepared to retrain throughout their lifetime and there needs to be a way for people to easily access retraining. 

I read an article recently how Walmart realized that if they pay a little more, offer folks paths to higher positions, and give them more stable schedules that they will get better results and greater customer satisfaction. Who would have thunk?!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yes.  I think our model for childcare is just unsistainable.

Just like healthcare is unsustainable. We need universal single payer healthcare.

[Bluegoat]

Comparing minimum wage to certain jobs that require skill and training, but are grossly underpaid (preschool teacher above) is not useful here. That's a different issue to me. 

 

Possibly it needs to be based on location. I live in NoVa. High cost of living. I do see young people working $12/hour jobs and able to move out. How are they doing that? They are working multiple jobs. They have to. A lot of places won't give full time hours to avoid benefits. So no health insurance, hopefully they stay on their parent's plan until age 26. I do know one 28 yo who gave high praise to ACA  for his insurance. Then, they live with multiple room mates. Not one room mate--at least 2. The ones who are managing the best on their own financially have 3 jobs spread over 7 days a week. Really not a great way to live. And unless you are very strategic about these jobs, there's no way to move up and out of the situation. 

 

Since I work in places that offer some of these crappy wages, I have some ideas about workers not being motivated, not putting in effort etc. It is true some people are lazy and do just enough. However, it is also true some places of employment have no path to better oneself. Why work hard if you will never be promoted or have a chance to do more. Good managers help workers see a path to better. They recognize one way to motivate is help provide that path out:

1. show workers how promotions are made, explain exceptional work leads to supervisory work, which may not pay more, but gives good experience for other promotions. 

2. make opportunities for cross training through the company available. Some jobs may not need skills like knowing how to use microsoft office or other software, but if the training is available, make it available to people in a variety of positions so they can switch job. 

3. give workers predictable schedules and allow them to ask for schedules that fit school or other job training they are doing whether or not it's related to the company. Many employees are grateful for this and will work hard to keep the privilege. 

Basically, if you can't pay more than give the workers opportunities to gain skills so they can have a path. The problem I see is some employers don't want to do this because they don't want workers to eventually leave. That approach just leads to people who feel trapped and don't care to do beyond the minimum to keep the job. 

 

Here's my recent life experience behind my viewpoint:

So, what I do now I started several years back for a few hours a week just to supplement because the kind of work I did before was not going to mesh with homeschooling or give me some of the flexibility I needed for being the parent of a kid with a lifelong disability. I figured eventually I'd get back to one of my old careers. It became clear a couple years ago I wasn't going to be able to do that and that my family really needed income so I increased my hours doing what I do. I'm very good at it and very dependable. I had a boss who took advantage of that. In the job I had there were no raises, ever. So, if you stayed eventually new hires would be paid more because the "starting" pay was raised. I was given a lot of responsibility for training people, but I was stuck. I asked how could I get into hire level jobs or get the skills to get those jobs. I got friendly meaningless responses. For a short time this boss had an assistant manager who saw I was completely underutilized. He found a way for me to get a little training. The boss didn't like that. After the assistant manager left, I reevaluated a few things. The job was incredibly close to my house, but I was so burnt out. I had another job teaching math at an alternative school that gave me so few hours I made significantly less there and was burnt from the injustices to the kids there. I was in a bad place and felt trapped with these jobs. I eventually contacted that person in his new job and he hired me. He gave me a position with enough hours to get partial benefits (I pay a bit for health ins).  I still do some of the same work for higher pay,  but he's also given me more responsibility and projects and sent me to events that are getting me known to other people in our organization. He also tells me whenever he hears of a job opening. Recently, he showed me how to list stuff I've done better, so my applications make it through online sorting. He's pointed out some important skills that I didn't recognize I had. It's going to take time, but I can see a way up. Is my current boss' involvement taking hours of week holding my hand. No. That would be really creepy. And he doesn't have the time. It's more like every few of weeks I get an email or text with a link to a job opening or free training our organization is offering or maybe he tells me something when we pass at work, like last week when he said so-and-so at xyz center got promoted, her job is going to be advertised it would be good for you to apply. So, he tries to keep people like me happy. He knows I will work my butt off for him and that makes him look good. He also tries to keep the high school and college students happy with schedules that meet their school constraints. He knows that if all he offers is $10-15/hour forever and ever people are going to feel trapped and not be the most productive. 

 

Back to the original question I think raising the wage will encourage some employers to go with robots or other automation. Many places have already done that. I think that's fine. I think raising the wage alone is not targeting the issue. I think we haven't addressed how people can continually attain skills to do better jobs over time. People can't start at the bottom and stagnate. People can't start in the middle and stagnate. Over time the skills needed in the workforce change. People needed to be prepared to retrain throughout their lifetime and there needs to be a way for people to easily access retraining. 

 

I really liked your post, and I think the question of keeping employees hours down to avoid paying benefits is an important related issue. And I completely agree that workers who don't see that their employers are on their side will never give their best.  A fearful employee might do a lot to keep her job, but she isn't likely to stick her neck out.  And people in that situation will be far more likely to take advantage if they can get away with it. 

 

I think it is important to be careful though with the goal of getting people out of low level jobs.  It may not be realistic to think that jobs like that are ever going to be made up primarily by workers who will go on to better things.  In a lot of cases that doesn't seem to be the case any more.  I think so long as most "better" jobs are asking for university degrees, even when they aren't really all that necessary, it's likely to stay that way - and the fact that many people need jobs that can be combined with family responsibility in some way means the same thing.  Some people will be limited to those kinds of jobs, and the jobs themselves won't disappear. 

[Bluegoat]

And what exactly are we supposed to do with all of the folks working service jobs who are replaced by robots? Let them starve in the streets?

 

I get when a professional might be irked at a service worker making as much as they do but let's face it there are not enough professional jobs for everyone let alone service sector jobs. And for folks saying that McD's jobs are not meant to be living wage jobs and teenage jobs, I disagree since there are only limited manufacturing jobs out (although FTR under Obama 850,000 manufacturing jobs were created) and service sector is a big part of the job market. So I guess I am saying is that we should not diss service workers and begrudge them living wages.

 

Oh and when robots do replace a lot of our jobs our country is going to have to figure out how to give a living wage benefit to those out of work unless we want to live in like Victorian times or something like that. Of course I don't see the right agreeing to that at all.

 

Yup.

 

Replace the workers with robots.  Pay out of work people from the public purse.  Tax the workers who have jobs, (but not the companies that put in the robots) for the money to do it.

 

So, people on assistance have no money to buy.  People working have no money to buy.  No one buys, and the economy tanks.  Walmart sells to people in CHina, until they are in the same situation.

 

Pretty much why Marx thought capitalism would burn itself out.

[Bluegoat]

Just like healthcare is unsustainable. We need universal single payer healthcare.

 

Yes - it's not a fix in every way, but it does make a lot more possible.

 

I'm not sold on universal childcare.  I think it can work, but I don't know that I like the model.  I tend to prefer the idea that it is possible to have an economy where people can get by with less than two full time jobs per family, and we can handle communities where small kids and the elderly and disabled are able to be outside institutions to a greater degree.  Institutional care has some real pros, but overall it seems to result in segregated communities - the kids in one place, adults in another, elderly here and the disabled elsewhere.  I don't think that serves anyone well, we tend to forget about each other and lose touch.

 

I feel jelous sometimes looking at, say, Swedish pre-schools - but OTOH I know that in Sweden there is no way I could stay home with my four kids and make a little money by taking care of my friend's kids as well.  Being a homemaker wouldn't be an option.

[BlsdMama]

I guess I think it's ridiculous. 

 

My teen kids started at minimum wage at fastfood.  They worked hard, they were dependable.  They now no longer make minimum wage.

 

Why?

 

Because their labor is precious.  You get minimum wage for minimum work otherwise employers want to hold onto you and want to ensure you don't go somewhere else.

 

The only thing I can see minimum wage doing is raising the costs of EVERYTHING.  Do I want to pay $5 for a gallon of milk and $5 for a loaf of bread?  I think raising the minimum wage that high will absolutely salughter the middle class because we aren't eligible for any of the help the poor are and yet we will have to absorb the additional raises in prices on every solitary thing.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I guess I wonder about the reasoning behind $15 specifically.  I am in favor of raising it, but why $15 across the board?

 

 

 

 

[heartlikealion]

I have never made $15 an hour. All of my jobs, including the ones in my field have been hourly rather than salary. I did earn overtime at one job on a regular basis, though. Here (Mississippi) it would be insane to have a $15/hr min. wage, but in other states maybe it would make sense. Oh and I have been a cashier many times (fast food to retail). Despite that, when I worked somewhere temporarily as a cashier just this year they told us that everyone had to start at min. wage. I can't remember if it was sub. teacher or assistant teacher, but I do recall one of those jobs around here offering $10/hr. I actually worked my tail off in fast food more than I did in some of my other jobs. In some ways that job deserved the better pay lol. I get overwhelmed easily and it was quite difficult to listen to someone give a detailed order in the drive-thru while accepting money from someone at the same time and having a manager remind you of the drive-thru numbers (for those of you that don't know, we were actually timing the line speed all day long).

My son works at a company that makes industrial robots. He says that many minimum wage jobs can *easily* be replaced by robots. The technology already exists. He noted that McDonald's is starting to convert to robots and they are starting in all the areas that are raising minimum wage. When low skill jobs jump to $15/hour wages, it's profitable to use robots. Fast food workers protesting for $15/hour, especially in low cost of living areas like mine where professionals often don't make a whole lot more than that, are protesting themselves right out of a job!

 

High technology improves by leaps and bounds and a robot that is so expensive today that it can only replace a $15 an hour worker will probably be improved in a few years, and be able to replace a $1.50 an hour worker soon.  Then what?

[BlsdMama]

Comparing minimum wage to certain jobs that require skill and training, but are grossly underpaid (preschool teacher above) is not useful here. That's a different issue to me. 

 

 

People needed to be prepared to retrain throughout their lifetime and there needs to be a way for people to easily access retraining. 

 

 

I think your whole post was thought provoking and good.  

 

I think the first sentence is really important to take note of because that's true - an underpaid middle trained job is different than truly discussing MINIMUM wage.

 

 

The second sentence represents a bit of a dichotomy?   I see people UNWILLING to seek out more training/education/get better or certified in their chosen niche BUT I do NOT see that we have difficulty accessing this.

 

Frankly. I am a full time student currently.  I take classes from home at my local community college.  I can get my full AA or AS online and Iowa also has a FULL BAS/BAA online - now, you don't get to necessarily choose your ideal major, but it is a pathway to improvement, kwim?  There are also grants like the Pell grant for those who qualify - and I should think only making minimum wage in a household would qualify.  What is easier than online classes?  I mean, yeah, I have to spend hours studying and put in the WORK, but who said anyone should be handed anything in life, kwim? (And I'm not saying this is what the OP was saying, I'm just clarifying my own thoughts.)

 

I think we have two serious problems in peoples' thinking.

 

1. If I want to move up and make more  I'm entitled to do so.  No, no you aren't.  If your skills, intelligence, or ability only qualify you to work at Wal-Mart, that's sad, but that's the facts.  It is what it is.  There will be some people, because of their limitations, will only make minimum wage and will only be able to afford an apartment and nothing more.  

 

2. If you are not limited profoundly by intelligence and it is just that you don't WANT to work two jobs (like an apprenticeship or go to school online or at night) then why is it that you should expect other people who DID DO THESE THINGS to hand over $$ to you?

 

*Because, it isn't like money appears from thin air.  Every penny the government gives out was  TAKEN  from someone else in order to do so.

[bettyandbob]

I think your whole post was thought provoking and good.  

 

I think the first sentence is really important to take note of because that's true - an underpaid middle trained job is different than truly discussing MINIMUM wage.

 

 

The second sentence represents a bit of a dichotomy?   I see people UNWILLING to seek out more training/education/get better or certified in their chosen niche BUT I do NOT see that we have difficulty accessing this.

 

Frankly. I am a full time student currently.  I take classes from home at my local community college.  I can get my full AA or AS online and Iowa also has a FULL BAS/BAA online - now, you don't get to necessarily choose your ideal major, but it is a pathway to improvement, kwim?  There are also grants like the Pell grant for those who qualify - and I should think only making minimum wage in a household would qualify.  What is easier than online classes?  I mean, yeah, I have to spend hours studying and put in the WORK, but who said anyone should be handed anything in life, kwim? (And I'm not saying this is what the OP was saying, I'm just clarifying my own thoughts.)

 

I think we have two serious problems in peoples' thinking.

 

1. If I want to move up and make more  I'm entitled to do so.  No, no you aren't.  If your skills, intelligence, or ability only qualify you to work at Wal-Mart, that's sad, but that's the facts.  It is what it is.  There will be some people, because of their limitations, will only make minimum wage and will only be able to afford an apartment and nothing more.  

 

2. If you are not limited profoundly by intelligence and it is just that you don't WANT to work two jobs (like an apprenticeship or go to school online or at night) then why is it that you should expect other people who DID DO THESE THINGS to hand over $$ to you?

 

*Because, it isn't like money appears from thin air.  Every penny the government gives out was  TAKEN  from someone else in order to do so.

 

I definitely see a problem with accessing training. When people are juggling multiple jobs at low wages they often don't have a predictable schedule to get more training. Often they've been at it a few years before they realize there's no way they'll ever have the predictability they need. That is soul crushing. That is when they get to the "no way out" mentality. 

 

Some jobs offer a little access to a little training within the organization (like mine). If you have a crap boss (there are quite a few) who don't want anyone moving up, they'd rather have someone leave than become an equal then you may never learn how these training opportunities work or how a nonbenefits employee can access them. 

 

There will always be people with entitled attitudes. There always have been. The fact that those people exist does not mean access to a path is not a huge problem. If there is no clear access then a whole class of employees have no incentive to work at a high quality level. 

[heartlikealion]

I think your whole post was thought provoking and good.  

 

I think the first sentence is really important to take note of because that's true - an underpaid middle trained job is different than truly discussing MINIMUM wage.

 

 

The second sentence represents a bit of a dichotomy?   I see people UNWILLING to seek out more training/education/get better or certified in their chosen niche BUT I do NOT see that we have difficulty accessing this.

 

Frankly. I am a full time student currently.  I take classes from home at my local community college.  I can get my full AA or AS online and Iowa also has a FULL BAS/BAA online - now, you don't get to necessarily choose your ideal major, but it is a pathway to improvement, kwim?  There are also grants like the Pell grant for those who qualify - and I should think only making minimum wage in a household would qualify.  What is easier than online classes?  I mean, yeah, I have to spend hours studying and put in the WORK, but who said anyone should be handed anything in life, kwim? (And I'm not saying this is what the OP was saying, I'm just clarifying my own thoughts.)

 

I think we have two serious problems in peoples' thinking.

 

1. If I want to move up and make more  I'm entitled to do so.  No, no you aren't.  If your skills, intelligence, or ability only qualify you to work at Wal-Mart, that's sad, but that's the facts.  It is what it is.  There will be some people, because of their limitations, will only make minimum wage and will only be able to afford an apartment and nothing more.  

 

2. If you are not limited profoundly by intelligence and it is just that you don't WANT to work two jobs (like an apprenticeship or go to school online or at night) then why is it that you should expect other people who DID DO THESE THINGS to hand over $$ to you?

 

*Because, it isn't like money appears from thin air.  Every penny the government gives out was  TAKEN  from someone else in order to do so.

 

Not everyone that has a degree did those things. Some people were just a student. Or a student without kids and other big responsibilities while they worked. I wasn't working the whole time I was a student, just part of the time. I can imagine scenarios where someone thinks, "what good is an AA? It won't give me a salary boost where I am and what doors is it going to open?" I never felt like my AA did a whole lot for me. I was working at McDonald's while I was earning it and for a bit after I graduated. I also watched a coworker (in a different job) earn a degree and thought it would give her a bump, but it didn't seem to matter. I wanted to gently tell her, "what made you think it would? It isn't exactly directly related to our job."

 

I don't think all people can manage the same things. Just because Billy can work a job and stay up and do online classes after his shift doesn't mean everyone could handle it. Actually my dh did that (got his master's degree online while watching ds during the day and working PT at night/weekends). Me? I don't think I could have managed. I hate to dismiss it as, "you didn't WANT it enough." It's just really, really demanding and takes a toll on different people to different degrees. And then for what? Sometimes no gain. I think of Jenna Marbles (YouTube star) holding up her seemingly useless Master's degree.

[Bluegoat]

I think your whole post was thought provoking and good.  

 

I think the first sentence is really important to take note of because that's true - an underpaid middle trained job is different than truly discussing MINIMUM wage.

 

 

The second sentence represents a bit of a dichotomy?   I see people UNWILLING to seek out more training/education/get better or certified in their chosen niche BUT I do NOT see that we have difficulty accessing this.

 

Frankly. I am a full time student currently.  I take classes from home at my local community college.  I can get my full AA or AS online and Iowa also has a FULL BAS/BAA online - now, you don't get to necessarily choose your ideal major, but it is a pathway to improvement, kwim?  There are also grants like the Pell grant for those who qualify - and I should think only making minimum wage in a household would qualify.  What is easier than online classes?  I mean, yeah, I have to spend hours studying and put in the WORK, but who said anyone should be handed anything in life, kwim? (And I'm not saying this is what the OP was saying, I'm just clarifying my own thoughts.)

 

I think we have two serious problems in peoples' thinking.

 

1. If I want to move up and make more  I'm entitled to do so.  No, no you aren't.  If your skills, intelligence, or ability only qualify you to work at Wal-Mart, that's sad, but that's the facts.  It is what it is.  There will be some people, because of their limitations, will only make minimum wage and will only be able to afford an apartment and nothing more.  

 

2. If you are not limited profoundly by intelligence and it is just that you don't WANT to work two jobs (like an apprenticeship or go to school online or at night) then why is it that you should expect other people who DID DO THESE THINGS to hand over $$ to you?

 

*Because, it isn't like money appears from thin air.  Every penny the government gives out was  TAKEN  from someone else in order to do so.

 

You know, it used to be that most businesses and professions trained their own workers, directly or indirectly.  On the job training, apprentices.   Developing workers was a cost of doing business.  That makes perfect sense in a capitalist economy, since the worker is essentially a cost or resource for the employer, rather than being a sort of self-employed tradesman.

 

What has happened is that employers have found a way to get rid of that expense, by putting the cost, and the risk, or education, on the worker.  It's a bit of a contradiction because the worker doesn't get to have influence over the job market, or what the employers ask for in terms of qualifications. He has to make his best guess, get what he can afford in terms of time and money, and hope it matches what someone wants.

 

It also means employers can demand totally unnecessary qualifications without it being detrimental to them - they won't have to pay for it if they demand a degree for a job that doesn't require it. 

 

It's a really inefficient system that creates a situation where it is easy for employers to exploit the workforce, and where life circumstances will keep people from getting into the kind of work they are best suited to because they can't afford it. 

 

I don't see a problem with taxing employers in order to educate their employees so they can do whatever it is they want them to do.  It's a cost of doing business.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Yup.

 

Replace the workers with robots.  Pay out of work people from the public purse.  Tax the workers who have jobs, (but not the companies that put in the robots) for the money to do it.

 

So, people on assistance have no money to buy.  People working have no money to buy.  No one buys, and the economy tanks.  Walmart sells to people in CHina, until they are in the same situation.

 

Pretty much why Marx thought capitalism would burn itself out.

I am against communism totally. But I have read articles about this all too real problem of many jobs at risk of being replaced including many professional jobs by robots. What are we to do? Let people starve? Let our economy tank since not enough people can afford to buy things?

 

I also am for taxing the super rich and companies appropriately. Trickle down has proven itself to not work. I know my rich grandfather fared very, very well when tax rates were a good amount higher pre- Reagan tax cuts.  And American fared better too under higher taxes. Now we argue about even paying for badly needed infrastructure.

 

Trump's idea of the top bracket being $250,000 or so to a gazillion dollars and getting the largest tax cuts of all is ridiculous! I definitely think there should a multiple tax brackets all the way up to a gazillion dollars and that the likes of Trump should not get away paying zero federal income taxes for 20 years.

[Murphy101]

I do not think wanting a living wage (of which a minimum wage is usually not) for their work or access to education (of which debt is not) is entitled beyond the concept that I think all people who want to work or get educated are entitled to such things imnsho.

 

The fact is the cost of things people NEED and the cost of education is going batshit crazy and as a society we will say enough is enough and this insanity has to stop at some point. We can keep hand wringing about how oh this is so not fair to people with more until eventually it goes the way of revolutions and new govts or we can decide to have policies that stop that insanity from getting worse and, heaven forbid, maybe even makes things better for everyone.

[happi duck]

Don't have time to read before commenting...

 

Around here you can't live on minimum wage *and* it isn't kids working those jobs it's people trying to care of their families.

 

Imo, our country needs to adjust. We need companies to see providing jobs as one of their missions.

 

Just because one doesnt have special training or a degree doesn't mean they don't deserve to have a living wage.

 

I personally don't think people should be ranked by who "deserves" to live decently.

[Arcadia]

What has happened is that employers have found a way to get rid of that expense, by putting the cost, and the risk, or education, on the worker. It's a bit of a contradiction because the worker doesn't get to have influence over the job market, or what the employers ask for in terms of qualifications.

Many of hubby's current and former employers have academic scholarships with bond for their engineering employees. The bond period depend on the cost of the program. What we do see in real life is abuse of the h1b program for positions that requires a computer science bachelors degree by companies like Tata and Infosys. We have friends on h1b hired through those channels and it is a separate issue from minimum wage.

 

Starbucks have a college plan that is advertised in many libraries and even supermarkets bulletin boards.

"In a first of its kind collaboration with Arizona State University (ASU), we’re offering all part- and full-time benefits eligible U.S. partners full tuition coverage for every year of college to earn a bachelor’s degree. Partners receive support from a dedicated team of coaches and advisors, 24/7 tutoring on a variety of subjects, and a choice of more than 60 undergraduate degrees through ASU's research driven and top-ranked program, delivered online."

https://www.starbucks.com/careers/college-plan

[Ravin]

It would make more sense to reduce property taxes. That would lower rent to affordable.

 

 

No it wouldn't. It would line the pockets of landlords.

[Murphy101]

I also don't agree with the "I worked myself into an early grave for this and so can everyone else" theory.

 

We don't say that for anything else.

 

I have 11 kids and I don't walk around saying, "hey I have had 11 kids even with hypermesis and dh traveling meaning I have had to mostly solo parent and we are low income AND we home school, so what's your excuse for not doing ____?"

 

Because that's nuts. They aren't me. And likewise I'd be very dejected and miserable if I compared myself to others that way too. Because I'm not them.

 

And life happens every single day no matter how smart or determined someone is. Cars breaks down, people get sick, relationships are damaged, and so much more. It's not even awful horrible tragic life happens stuff, the mundane life stuff is called the daily grind for a reason. If wanting society to at least not add more pressure to the grinding or make it slightly less abrassive makes people entitled, then I'm okay with them being entitled.

[Murphy101]

The comparison of burger flippers and preschool workers making the same even though the preschool teacher has a degree is ridiculous.

 

One, having a degree doesn't necessarily make her worth more. It's preschool, not brain surgery.

 

Two, the presumption that the burger flipper doesn't also have a degree is a denial of today's reality where it is not unusual for the burger flipper to not only have a degree, it might be a higher or more challenging degree than that teachers.