$15/hour min. wage?

[Bluegoat]

I don't think raising the Min wage is feasible without some sort of protection to small businesses such as universal health care (for example) which would reduce the worker's compensation taxes. There are a lot of regulations, senseless bureaucracies, and additional expenses that people don't consider in small business that are a burden. If some of those burdens were lessened then it might be easier for small businesses to bear additional wages.

 

I have wondered why smaller businesses don't campain for universal care or insurance of some kind.  It would be really good for them.

[Bootsie]

 

 

But when we say there is a need for profit - earnings above and beyond what it costs to support all the people and resources involved in the product and service - this sort of extra argument, which some find compelling, starts to pop up.  It's ok to pay low wages if that is all the business can support, so we can make a profit that goes to the owner(s).  Otherwise the business will close and that is bad for everyone.  We can oppose environmental regulation because we need to increase profit, which is what business is about - increased profit means the business is working well. 

 

If you are defining profit as economic profit--profit above what it costs to attain all of the resources (including the owner's resources), then I would agree that economic profit is not necessary to maintain a business.  One of the sticky points becomes is what is "fair remuneration"  to the owners of the capital.  This fair remuneration is often referred to as "profit". 

 

As far as the morality of the issue, is it moral for me to pay a producer less than what a product is worth to me? Or, is it ever fair to charge more than the direct cost for something?  Suppose I pay $100,000 for a house.  Over the years, I have maintenance expenses and taxes of $30,000.  Would it be immoral for me to sell it to someone for $150,000 if that is what they are willing to pay?

[Bluegoat]

If you are defining profit as economic profit--profit above what it costs to attain all of the resources (including the owner's resources), then I would agree that economic profit is not necessary to maintain a business.  One of the sticky points becomes is what is "fair remuneration"  to the owners of the capital.  This fair remuneration is often referred to as "profit". 

 

As far as the morality of the issue, is it moral for me to pay a producer less than what a product is worth to me? Or, is it ever fair to charge more than the direct cost for something?  Suppose I pay $100,000 for a house.  Over the years, I have maintenance expenses and taxes of $30,000.  Would it be immoral for me to sell it to someone for $150,000 if that is what they are willing to pay?

 

Yes, I agree fair renumeration is sticky.  Especially if the owner is a shareholder who does nothing.  I think its interesting that the rise of the public corporation is so important in these kinds of questions.

 

I'm not sure about the second question.  Housing prices do often go up, even more than inflation.  OTOH, an older home is usually cheaper than a comparable new home.  My inclination is to say that the taxes are irrelevant, they aren't really about the worth of the home, they are about paying your share of services.  I'm not sure about the maintenance - perhaps that is your cost of living, at least partly.

 

Real estate is particularly funny, I think, because you are paying for land.  I tend to think land isn't something that should be bought and sold in the normal way on a market.

[saraha]

I am the treasurer for a non-profit daycare.  We operate in a very economically depressed area.  The rates our families pay is determined by JFS because a whopping 75% of the kids that come here are funded through JFS, with or without a small co-pay.  There is a grand total of ONE other daycare center in our whole county, and they do not take JFS kids, and charge a higher rate. They can because they are open on the corridor to the city 45 minutes away.  Their center is NICE.  Ours is 30 years old and we just make ends meet. We don't even provide lunch for the kids, they pack.  Which works because most of our families are on WIC or foodstamps that can help them with that. Most of our moms work in one of the 5 fast food restaurants in town. Our employees just last year started making minimum wage.  We are actually allowed to pay less than minimum wage because of our non-profit status, but we have been able to raise that.  This year we were able to give everyone a 3% raise.  Our DIRECTOR (who runs the entire center except for the bookkeeping) only makes $10.15 an hour, and that just started in November.  We are blessed to have a dedicated staff who would rather work with our kids than work literally across the street at McDs, where they could make more. We would love to pay these girls what they are worth, and attract more educated, qualified experienced workers, but we can't.  The county does not pay us enough per child to pay more. 

 

All this to say, if our minimum wage jumped to $15, we would have to follow suit.  We would have to raise our rates, and, even if the government decides to pay us more as a result, the government works slowly when it comes to paying out, so our initial raises would not be covered by the JFS payments right away.  This would have a disastrous effect on our center.  Some people would end up pulling their kids because they lost their minimum wage jobs, or because they lost their benefits and it doesn't pay to have their kids in our now more expensive daycare.  Some people who make 15.01 would not get a pay raise, but because our employees did, their daycare just went up, and now they can't afford it. 

 

Our income relies very heavily on our JFS payments.  Our business runs so close to the margin to provide basic services, that I don't think we would survive, and then there would only be 1 other center in our county, who does not have JFS kids.  And there would be 7 employees out of work. And to be perfectly honest, for many reasons I would not even put my own kids in this daycare if I could help it. The people that bring their kids here don't have any other choice.

 

This is very poorly written, but I have some very strong feelings about it due to working within the system first hand.

Edited December 2, 2016 by saraha

[Murphy101]

There's profit and then there's price gauging and pseudo indentured servitude/"slave" wages.

 

When someone isn't just making a profit, they are creating hardship and oppression to do it - that's no longer about profit. That's something else.

 

Profit - good. Sure. Great. ðŸ‘

 

Forcing people to work for wages we KNOW will not allow them to sustain themselves, much less prosper?

 

Making people pay exhortbant prices for things they NEED to live productive lives?

 

That's not profit. We have other words for that.

 

And yes, I said force and making. General speaking most people do indeed HAVE to work. And they have to pay for the things they NEED. Contrary to media BS, there are exceedingly few citizens who get money for doing nothing, and even the few who do aren't exactly living the high life, they usually still have to use that money for things they need.

 

So I don't care if people make profits. I'd like to make a profit myself someday!

 

But if the only way I can make a profit requires doing either of those things? Then that's unethical. Making it okay for everyone to operate business that way wasn't the goal of making monopolies illegal.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Murphy101

[katilac]

I am the treasurer for a non-profit daycare.  We operate in a very economically depressed area.  The rates our families pay is determined by JFS because a whopping 75% of the kids that come here are funded through JFS, with or without a small co-pay.  T 

 

What is JFS? 

[Bootsie]

Yes, I agree fair renumeration is sticky.  Especially if the owner is a shareholder who does nothing.  I think its interesting that the rise of the public corporation is so important in these kinds of questions.

 

I'm not sure about the second question.  Housing prices do often go up, even more than inflation.  OTOH, an older home is usually cheaper than a comparable new home.  My inclination is to say that the taxes are irrelevant, they aren't really about the worth of the home, they are about paying your share of services.  I'm not sure about the maintenance - perhaps that is your cost of living, at least partly.

 

Real estate is particularly funny, I think, because you are paying for land.  I tend to think land isn't something that should be bought and sold in the normal way on a market.

Since a shareholder provides capital to a business, how is a shareholder doing nothing?

 

Is it immoral to sell anything for more than I paid for it (a machine, a painting, an ounce of gold, etc.)? 

[Guest]

I think that the reason that preschool teaching is paid so poorly is that it's a pink collar job.

It has more flexibility in parttime hours that a lot of other positions, it's a clean though strenuous workplace, and it has a career path, which is somewhat uncommon for parttime work.

Preschool is part of public school here. The church based preschools all closed when that happened, but there are Montessoris and such in wealthier neighborhoods. Public school preschool teachers are well compensated in this state.

[BlsdMama]

You're missing that some of this is regional. In our area I'd say 80% of the fast food workers are high schoolers or college, maybe 20% are adults who are middle aged and usually immigrants, oftentimes in management positions. At the grocery store it's usually 50/50, and their minimum pay is a little above minimum wage and benefits kick in after six months as well.

 

The cost of living is much higher here than, say, Tennessee or West Virginia or Oklahoma. Unemployment is lower by and large. And I know no high schoolers seeking employment who haven't found after school jobs - I see children of my friends working around town visibly and easily in the service industry. I'm pretty sure the manager of our local Papa Murphy's is maybe 22?

 

Raising the wage here even higher isn't needed, and raising it to double what some of these states, already strapped for jobs, are currently paying is senseless. San Fran or NYC need higher wages on the whole for almost all jobs than La Follette, and dealing with it federally is inappropriate. I'm a fan of federal labor laws as a base minimum for states to further improve or augment, but that's about it.

 

 

Yes, I have to agree it's regional.  With kiddos in the fast food industry, their manager is 23.  Their previous manager was late 20s and she liked the pace.  Her money was additional income (she could afford to stay home) because she liked to shop - her words, not mine.  

I will admit our unemployment rate is pretty low here.  But the adults my kiddos work with tend to come and go - they aren't exactly reliable.  The show up - most of the time.  They call in - sometimes.  They work hard - occasionally.  I'm sorry to say it, but it's true.  And so I for those adults, I do know why they probably are employed in fast food when we are a manufacturing industry city.  There are truly decent paying jobs to be had in this city - quite a few good companies constantly hiring.  My soon-to-be son in law just got hired at a warehouse who will work around his college schedule.  It starts at $12.50.  And he chose not to go to a manufacturer who starts at $15 because he doesn't want the demands of a 40 hour work week right now.  Daycare around here averages $3-$4 per hour based on a 40 hour work week from what I can find online for our county.  

 

So looking at those averages and seeing that the daycare workers at centers average $10/ hour - if the minimum wage goes up to $15/ hour for everyone, daycare workers included, the people working low income jobs are going to pay out MORE too - for daycare but also for milk & bread & whatnots.  KWIM?  I don't see how an increase in minimum wage is going to benefit low income families.

[Dmmetler]

Preschool is part of public school here. The church based preschools all closed when that happened, but there are Montessoris and such in wealthier neighborhoods. Public school preschool teachers are well compensated in this state.

I expect there are still a lot of child care centers, though-usually school district preschool only covers one year before K except for kids with disabilities. And even within the school district, funding may or may not have pay parity with K-12 salaries. Here, I can name schools that have PK or Preschool funded in four different ways, and only one is paid on the district salary scale with the staff considered to be teachers. The others are all funded differently, and therefore have a salary or hourly rate set by the funding source, which is often a federal or state level block grant of some form.

[Ausmumof3]

I'm curious about this. Do you believe making a profit is immoral?

 

If so, do you think it is immoral for anyone to make more than just covering their basic living expenses? Because I don't. I want to make a profit in my life so I can save for emergencies, replacement vehicle, retirement, helping my kids with college, helping others as I can. I know I can't take it with me, but I would like to have enough not to be a burden on my children.

 

And businesses, quite frankly, are the same. They have to have extra money to cover those times when business isn't good. Because the utilities still expect expect to be paid, the government still wants their portion, etc. And businesses need to pay extra hours or workers to cover the time their regular employees are sick or on vacation or on family leave. And many businesses need to spend money on R&D - which at first produces nothing. And many businesses spend $$$ trying to adhere to governmental regulations.

 

And employees are a cost. Costs go up, price goes up. Why would I spend my time running a business if I didn't make a profit? I wouldn't.

 

I do not see that the assumption that profit is necessary as a justification for underpaying, exploiting, environmental destruction. For unethical people, maybe, but not for the rest of us. I'm sorry you see it as this.

 

Just FYI, I was a partial owner in a company. We didn't make a product, we sold our technical services. But, we knew that the true cost of an employee was approximately twice their annual salary. Because of health insurance, disability insurances, 401K matching contribution, sick leave, vacation, paying someone else to keep track of their hours, bill the clients, file all the governmental paperwork, keep track of the money/space/location, cleaning crews, supplies, etc. So the cost of the employee, for us, was not just their hourly rate. And, yes, we made a profit. We also paid our employees a very fair wage and a bonus at the end of the year. They were happy and content to work for us. Because we made a profit, we stayed in business and kept employing those people and gradually grew the business so we had to hire more and the cycle continued. Because that is how it is supposed to work.

I'm not the op but I think there's a difference between the profit model you are talking about and a shareholder driven profit model. I think there's a lot of small business owners out there like you who want to make things fair and reasonable for employees and make a reasonable profit and that's fine. But in a shareholder driven company the profit motive is completely separate from the employees so they can be more inclined to take a profit at all costs model. At least that's how I see it.

[Murphy101]

I'm not the op but I think there's a difference between the profit model you are talking about and a shareholder driven profit model. I think there's a lot of small business owners out there like you who want to make things fair and reasonable for employees and make a reasonable profit and that's fine. But in a shareholder driven company the profit motive is completely separate from the employees so they can be more inclined to take a profit at all costs model. At least that's how I see it.

I disagree. There are ways to be a shareholder in companies that have ethical practices. There are brokerage companies and mutual funds that specialize in offering exactly that option to people interested in investing.

[Ausmumof3]

I disagree. There are ways to be a shareholder in companies that have ethical practices. There are brokerage companies and mutual funds that specialize in offering exactly that option to people interested in investing.

I don't think that it's impossible to have an ethically run shareholder model at all, I just think there's more scope for problems when there's a disconnect between the labour force and the people making money out of them. It's easier to ignore when it's not on your doorstep. In the same way that I can buy a $2 shirt from target and not feel overly bad but if I actually had to go and see the factory where they were made to buy it I'd probably feel more guilt over the purchase. The disconnect doesn't mean people will act unethically but for many people it seems they actually have to physically see the consequences for it to mean much to them.

 

I watched a TED talk ages ago recommending some kind of model where employees owned a certain share in the company. I know there's a lot of nitty gritty to be ironed out but overall I really like this concept because it links output to take away pay which has to be good for motivation.

[jewellsmommy]

I think that the reason that preschool teaching is paid so poorly is that it's a pink collar job.

It has more flexibility in parttime hours that a lot of other positions, it's a clean though strenuous workplace, and it has a career path, which is somewhat uncommon for parttime work.  

 

I would almost agree with you except for the "clean" workplace part. 

 

15 yrs ago I taught a 4yr old class at our church's pre-school before our state expanded early childhood education (completely removing the need for 3 & 4 yr old classes). BTW, as someone up -thread mentioned, I purchased all kinds of materials for my class. I made min wage because we were non-profit and was just getting started. But, there was at least one occasion that I spent more than I made on my class. 

 

Anyway, we catered to lower income families and quite often the single moms would dose their kids with tylenol to hide illness. It would wear off right about lunch time revealing several sick kids swapping their germs. I get it, but it made me crazy. In the winter it was a giant germ fest. I didn't eat oranges for a year after a kid vomited freshly eaten oranges  :ack2: . Then there were the inevitable bathroom accidents, booger rubbing fingers on others and objects, allergy or cold season snot wiping, bloody noses, thrown and spilled food ...so so so not a clean working environment  :tongue_smilie: . 

[Liz CA]

Evidently CA is implementing it. Prices will shoot up. Someone's got to pay for it.

[BlsdMama]

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.

 

So I guess my question becomes, "But does increasing the minimum wage make things better?"  Because I think the answer is no.

 

Let's say we up the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow.  Grocery stores will then pay their clerks more... And pass that cost on.  Then what?  The poor no longer qualify for food stamps because the government will take 3-5 years to catch up to the new poverty levels.  I do not see the poor benefitting.

 

 

A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours.  At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take.  That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid.  Those are the basics of living totally covered.

 

In what country can you do the minimum and still have everything paid for?  I'm not being snarky, really I'm not, I'm just wondering where, if anywhere has figured out a better system.  Because, with the above?  A person who is able and willing, CAN go to school and at least get the first two years paid for (community college would essentially be covered by the Pell) and then, yes, get loans for a public state school for two years.  But there is the ABILITY for someone to graduate from college with a bachelor's.  All the while, drawing the necessities from the government and qualifying while working in order to cover things not covered like soap.  

 

Maybe there is some piece  to this I don't comprehend?

 

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.

 

If Billy is working 8 hours a day and would rather be paid for his eight hours, then Billy is going to need to put 2 hours a night into studying.  And Billy, knowing he'd like to bank some money, best not choose Art History as his degree.  (No offense to Art History majors.)  Gone are the days when we can indulge ourselves in $100k of student loans and not get a job that pays decently.  So sayeth the family that had to join the Army to drop $68k in student loans AND her husband got his Masters WHILE in the Army.  It was freaking hard.  I'm not even going to candy coat it.  It was hard him getting his Masters while spending an awful lot of time in the field.  He didn't deploy but we were at Irwin, the NTC, during and immediately after 9/11 so they were spending a lot of time training deploying units.  I didn't love the time he spent away from our family to take classes and do schoolwork.  But it was a short period of putting in a huge effort for a bigger payoff.  I have no idea who Jenna is or what her Masters is in so I really can't comment.   And maybe my deal is regional here... But around here, you are employable, highly employable, with a strong work ethic and a bachelors, and for a heckuva lot more than minimum wage.

 

 

 

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. 

 

So the training I'm thinking of is specifically guilds and maybe the issue is a lack of knowledge. But there is an extreme NEED for repairmen and for certified and/or tech degrees.  For example: A/C repairmen, HVAC, pipe fitters unions, welders, skilled techs, electricians, and other skilled trades.  DS took an Intro to Engineering class last semester and people from the pipe fitters came and spoke to these kids about the level of need that exists.  Apprenticeships are available while going to school AND the starting wage after certification was around $20/hour.  We live in a fairly low to moderate COL area.

 

You are right in that they would need to prioritize school and work hours around them, but that is often why we see adults working fast food, working stocking, etc.  Wal-Mart third shift stockers here get paid $11.00/hour.  There is also work study for those that qualify.  Goodness, I just quit a job cleaning offices at night that was $11.50/hour.

 

So what I'm wondering is do I live in some kind of oasis of employment, education, and with a desperate NEED for CAPABLE employees?  Because, thus far, between my dd, ds, and future dsil, they have had no issues at all finding employment above the minimum and working around their schooling.  And, I'll add, DD and DSIL will be on their own shortly with a little one on the way.  He's going to be working, juggling school, taking on some loans, and DD will be doing in home daycare in order that she can stay home with the little one.  It isn't ideal.  It's going to be hard but a couple years of super hard, no time, pour it all into school/work will make it so that hard isn't a lifestyle.  And thank God we live in a country where that's actually possible.

Edited December 2, 2016 by BlsdMama

[whitestavern]

 

 

 

I remember when all gas stations did that.  (the movie miracle brings back memories of gas lines).  not sure if there even  are any full-serve  stations  around.  (I usually buy my gas at costco - that doesn't even have self-serve windshield cleaner.)

 

 

New Jersey! All gas stations are manned. I love getting gas in NJ :)

[jewellsmommy]

I am the treasurer for a non-profit daycare.  We operate in a very economically depressed area.  The rates our families pay is determined by JFS because a whopping 75% of the kids that come here are funded through JFS, with or without a small co-pay.  There is a grand total of ONE other daycare center in our whole county, and they do not take JFS kids, and charge a higher rate. They can because they are open on the corridor to the city 45 minutes away.  Their center is NICE.  Ours is 30 years old and we just make ends meet. We don't even provide lunch for the kids, they pack.  Which works because most of our families are on WIC or foodstamps that can help them with that. Most of our moms work in one of the 5 fast food restaurants in town. Our employees just last year started making minimum wage.  We are actually allowed to pay less than minimum wage because of our non-profit status, but we have been able to raise that.  This year we were able to give everyone a 3% raise.  Our DIRECTOR (who runs the entire center except for the bookkeeping) only makes $10.15 an hour, and that just started in November.  We are blessed to have a dedicated staff who would rather work with our kids than work literally across the street at McDs, where they could make more. We would love to pay these girls what they are worth, and attract more educated, qualified experienced workers, but we can't.  The county does not pay us enough per child to pay more. 

 

All this to say, if our minimum wage jumped to $15, we would have to follow suit.  We would have to raise our rates, and, even if the government decides to pay us more as a result, the government works slowly when it comes to paying out, so our initial raises would not be covered by the JFS payments right away.  This would have a disastrous effect on our center.  Some people would end up pulling their kids because they lost their minimum wage jobs, or because they lost their benefits and it doesn't pay to have their kids in our now more expensive daycare.  Some people who make 15.01 would not get a pay raise, but because our employees did, their daycare just went up, and now they can't afford it. 

 

Our income relies very heavily on our JFS payments.  Our business runs so close to the margin to provide basic services, that I don't think we would survive, and then there would only be 1 other center in our county, who does not have JFS kids.  And there would be 7 employees out of work. And to be perfectly honest, for many reasons I would not even put my own kids in this daycare if I could help it. The people that bring their kids here don't have any other choice.

 

This is very poorly written, but I have some very strong feelings about it due to working within the system first hand.

 

This was our church daycare. We went from a full service pre-school to just a daycare because all of the 3 and 4 yr olds were accepted into Early Childhood Education centers (public preschool). We then had infants through 2 yr olds and just a couple afterschool care. 90% of our kids were paid for by a social services program. Kids provided their own food. The church had to use volunteers from the congregation to be support staff because we couldn't afford the higher ratio required for infants. Social Services paid us less per kid because we were religious non-profit. We received $20 and some odd cents per child per day (non religious got a couple bucks more). If a family ceased to qualify for the SS program, they had to pull their child out. We had to close this year after 15 years because a number of families had job loss (so parent started staying home) or because they were cut from the program. 

 

The other church daycares aren't far behind us. They all run on narrow margins relying on volunteers and donations to make ends meet. These are very different from the self-pay learning centers in the wealthy areas that usually funnel into the private schools. Sadly, these tend to run on racial lines. Our daycare catered to a clientele that was all AA at the end. The self pay centers are more mixed and higher proportion white (of the few I have personal knowledge of). 

[Ravin]

What makes you certain another store would automatically pay him more than minimum? Some are pretty rigid in the way they pay.  They don't look at previous salaries and pay based on that. 

 

When I worked at McDs I would get periodic raises.  Raises were based on performance.  5 cents per hour was what you got if you did a very good job and had been there at least 6 months (which in McD land is FOREVER).  You got a quarter if you moved up in the ranks.  I once got 25 cents because I became shift manager.  That involved coming in at 4 am and opening up the store, counting money, and managing those working during a shift.  In terms of responsibilities it was quite a lot for only 25 cents more. 

 

 

This. So many times this. My girlfriend has been dealing with this. Often, just from one franchise to another you start back at the bottom. She has extensive work experience, plenty of history of working years at a time at a job (doesn't job hop like crazy), but each time she's had to look for a new job, she has found herself starting back at the bottom. She has worked in pizza, retail, and fast food. She didn't graduate high school, but that really doesn't matter; the pay situation would be the same if she had. You start at the bottom and work your way up, and when there's a "shakeup" of management, or you miss too much work because of illness, or your car breaks down or you have to move too far away and you can no longer get to work, or a store closes and you're laid off, you start back at the bottom again when you manage to land a new job. This is life for MILLIONS of HARDWORKING people.

[SparklyUnicorn]

This. So many times this. My girlfriend has been dealing with this. Often, just from one franchise to another you start back at the bottom. She has extensive work experience, plenty of history of working years at a time at a job (doesn't job hop like crazy), but each time she's had to look for a new job, she has found herself starting back at the bottom. She has worked in pizza, retail, and fast food. She didn't graduate high school, but that really doesn't matter; the pay situation would be the same if she had. You start at the bottom and work your way up, and when there's a "shakeup" of management, or you miss too much work because of illness, or your car breaks down or you have to move too far away and you can no longer get to work, or a store closes and you're laid off, you start back at the bottom again when you manage to land a new job. This is life for MILLIONS of HARDWORKING people.

 

Aw heck I even had to start over working for the same franchise.  I went from one McD to another one and started over.  They didn't say oh yay look at her experience!  Or oh yay we don't even have to train her. 

[Guest]

I expect there are still a lot of child care centers, though-usually school district preschool only covers one year before K except for kids with disabilities. And even within the school district, funding may or may not have pay parity with K-12 salaries. Here, I can name schools that have PK or Preschool funded in four different ways, and only one is paid on the district salary scale with the staff considered to be teachers. The others are all funded differently, and therefore have a salary or hourly rate set by the funding source, which is often a federal or state level block grant of some form.

This is a union state. A teacher is paid according to contract. If there is no state or federal funding, the BoE will put more high schoolers in study hall and fund the preschool teacher. If not, at risk will likely not learn enough. It is not a good field to go into, as declining enrollment means it will be a long long time before a fresh out of school person is hired. Average teacher has been on the job over 15 years.

No child care centers. We are rural, folks cant afford the gas. Grandma takes care of the kids, or mom partners with someone working offshift and they swap childcare. Wealthy hire an au pair. Middle class usally has mom drop out of workforce for a few years.

[Ausmumof3]

So I guess my question becomes, "But does increasing the minimum wage make things better?" Because I think the answer is no.

 

Let's say we up the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow. Grocery stores will then pay their clerks more... And pass that cost on. Then what? The poor no longer qualify for food stamps because the government will take 3-5 years to catch up to the new poverty levels. I do not see the poor benefitting.

 

 

A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours. At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take. That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid. Those are the basics of living totally covered.

 

In what country can you do the minimum and still have everything paid for? I'm not being snarky, really I'm not, I'm just wondering where, if anywhere has figured out a better system. Because, with the above? A person who is able and willing, CAN go to school and at least get the first two years paid for (community college would essentially be covered by the Pell) and then, yes, get loans for a public state school for two years. But there is the ABILITY for someone to graduate from college with a bachelor's. All the while, drawing the necessities from the government and qualifying while working in order to cover things not covered like soap.

 

Maybe there is some piece to this I don't comprehend?

 

 

If Billy is working 8 hours a day and would rather be paid for his eight hours, then Billy is going to need to put 2 hours a night into studying. And Billy, knowing he'd like to bank some money, best not choose Art History as his degree. (No offense to Art History majors.) Gone are the days when we can indulge ourselves in $100k of student loans and not get a job that pays decently. So sayeth the family that had to join the Army to drop $68k in student loans AND her husband got his Masters WHILE in the Army. It was freaking hard. I'm not even going to candy coat it. It was hard him getting his Masters while spending an awful lot of time in the field. He didn't deploy but we were at Irwin, the NTC, during and immediately after 9/11 so they were spending a lot of time training deploying units. I didn't love the time he spent away from our family to take classes and do schoolwork. But it was a short period of putting in a huge effort for a bigger payoff. I have no idea who Jenna is or what her Masters is in so I really can't comment. And maybe my deal is regional here... But around here, you are employable, highly employable, with a strong work ethic and a bachelors, and for a heckuva lot more than minimum wage.

 

 

 

 

So the training I'm thinking of is specifically guilds and maybe the issue is a lack of knowledge. But there is an extreme NEED for repairmen and for certified and/or tech degrees. For example: A/C repairmen, HVAC, pipe fitters unions, welders, skilled techs, electricians, and other skilled trades. DS took an Intro to Engineering class last semester and people from the pipe fitters came and spoke to these kids about the level of need that exists. Apprenticeships are available while going to school AND the starting wage after certification was around $20/hour. We live in a fairly low to moderate COL area.

 

You are right in that they would need to prioritize school and work hours around them, but that is often why we see adults working fast food, working stocking, etc. Wal-Mart third shift stockers here get paid $11.00/hour. There is also work study for those that qualify. Goodness, I just quit a job cleaning offices at night that was $11.50/hour.

 

So what I'm wondering is do I live in some kind of oasis of employment, education, and with a desperate NEED for CAPABLE employees? Because, thus far, between my dd, ds, and future dsil, they have had no issues at all finding employment above the minimum and working around their schooling. And, I'll add, DD and DSIL will be on their own shortly with a little one on the way. He's going to be working, juggling school, taking on some loans, and DD will be doing in home daycare in order that she can stay home with the little one. It isn't ideal. It's going to be hard but a couple years of super hard, no time, pour it all into school/work will make it so that hard isn't a lifestyle. And thank God we live in a country where that's actually possible.

I think one thing is that costs aren't only linked to the labour rate. they are linked to power costs, cost of materials, laws of supply and demand, overseas competition, export value, if we are talking things like milk, climate, rainfall, beef prices, transport costs (decent road or rail system), supermarket mark up - competition or not etc all play in. So it doesn't directly correlate that increasing labour costs will exactly relate to increased good cost. There is a correlation. I don't think it's a smart idea to suddenly double the minimum wage because of the economic fallout, but I think a gradually sliding scale over a number of years to even things out or at least maintain pace with inflation is a better model. A stagnant minimum wage isn't a good thing either.

[Carol in Cal.]

Out here preschools are not always, and not even usually, daycares.

[Murphy101]

So I guess my question becomes, "But does increasing the minimum wage make things better?" Because I think the answer is no.

 

Let's say we up the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow. Grocery stores will then pay their clerks more... And pass that cost on. Then what? The poor no longer qualify for food stamps because the government will take 3-5 years to catch up to the new poverty levels. I do not see the poor benefitting.

 

 

A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours. At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take. That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid. Those are the basics of living totally covered.

 

In what country can you do the minimum and still have everything paid for? I'm not being snarky, really I'm not, I'm just wondering where, if anywhere has figured out a better system. Because, with the above? A person who is able and willing, CAN go to school and at least get the first two years paid for (community college would essentially be covered by the Pell) and then, yes, get loans for a public state school for two years. But there is the ABILITY for someone to graduate from college with a bachelor's. All the while, drawing the necessities from the government and qualifying while working in order to cover things not covered like soap.

 

Maybe there is some piece to this I don't comprehend?

Oh

My

God

 

The piece that you don't comprehend is that is not at all true in THIS country.

 

Seriously.

 

That's not true at all that people can do the minimum and have everything, or even anything, paid for in this country.

 

At all.

 

So gobsmacked people really believe this.

 

Just.

 

No.

 

😫😧

[Ausmumof3]

Some thoughts on the original question.

 

We have a minimum wage of $17.70 per hour here. Our cost of living is higher so that is reflected. There is a separate pay scale for juniors which is a good thing because it makes it easier for kids to get an opening and more likely that employers will actually higher someone with no employment track record. Maybe $15 is a little high for the us given that cost of food and consumer goods and power is a lot lower. I don't know.

 

I do think changes are better made gradually to give the market time to find its feet rather than a sudden change. It also gives more time to assess whether the changes are working the way they are meant to or having unintended consequences.

 

Re: automation

this was a thing before minimum wage. Remember the cotton mill machine smashing etc. automation will happen regardless. It may happen on a faster scale with a higher minimum wage.

 

Is automation purely a bad thing? In the short term, yes jobs are lost. In the long term, theoretically if a society can produce more of its needs with less labour input then they have more available time to focus on other more meaningful activities. Science, research, art, design, innovation, education, quality of life. Of course this only works if there is some form of economic system that ensures that goods are being redistributed without taking away the incentive for the manufacturers to manufacture. Government investment is one model for increasing these kind of jobs I guess. Universal living allowance is one model but has its issues.

 

Re, loss of jobs. I keep seeing it said that many people are working multiple minimum wage jobs to get by. If they lose one job but have a higher income from the second isn't that a good thing in that it simplifies their lives. I know that's an overly simplistic model. maybe some will lose all livelihood I don't know? But I think it's ironic that in an era that we can theoretically produce more consumer goods with less labour input than ever people are having to work more hours to survive. Something doesn't stack up.

[Jaybee]

I'm not sure the minimum wage change would improve things in the long run, due to the fallout from it. I will say that I am feeling a little bit "talked down to" in this thread. Maybe I used to feel like many of you. In our current circumstances, dh, who has a master's degree, worked overseas for 25 years. When we needed to come back to the US last year, he did everything he knew to find a job--networking, etc., etc., everything anybody suggested. But in his field, there don't seem to be many jobs available. There doesn't seem to be a good option for retraining in another field--and it will take too long. He got a part-time job which paid a little over min wage. Then he added another part-time job at a grocery store chain with a good reputation. He got more hours there and a little more pay, but had to drop the other part-time job because the schedules were so erratic. He was willing to work two part-time jobs, but they wouldn't work with him to fill in more time--the schedules were constantly conflicting. He has been put in for full-time, but hasn't heard yet. Even with full-time, it will be too long before he can be considered for management due to the chain's protocol, and won't be eligible for benefits for awhile. In the meantime, we are living off savings and watching it dwindle while he still networks. Many of the people you see working retail or in lower type jobs, may just be in a hard fix. It may not have anything to do with their drive, their education level, their dependability, or their hard work. It may not have anything to do with their lack of looking and planning ahead. We are living proof of it.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh

My

God

 

The piece that you don't comprehend is that is not at all true in THIS country.

 

Seriously.

 

That's not true at all that people can do the minimum and have everything, or even anything, paid for in this country.

 

At all.

 

So gobsmacked people really believe this.

 

Just.

 

No.

 

😫😧

 

Uh yeah I know.  My sister was on disability some years ago.  She made 12K a year.  That put her over the limit for qualifying for Medicaid.  And she was FREAKING DISABLED for medical conditions.  I think she got food stamps in the amount of $4 a week or something pointless like that.  And this was disability earned through being employed long enough.  She didn't get help with utilities, or transportation or her rent. 

 

[heartlikealion]

So I guess my question becomes, "But does increasing the minimum wage make things better?"  Because I think the answer is no.

 

Let's say we up the minimum wage to $15 tomorrow.  Grocery stores will then pay their clerks more... And pass that cost on.  Then what?  The poor no longer qualify for food stamps because the government will take 3-5 years to catch up to the new poverty levels.  I do not see the poor benefitting.

 

 

A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours.  At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take.  That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid.  Those are the basics of living totally covered.

 

In what country can you do the minimum and still have everything paid for?  I'm not being snarky, really I'm not, I'm just wondering where, if anywhere has figured out a better system.  Because, with the above?  A person who is able and willing, CAN go to school and at least get the first two years paid for (community college would essentially be covered by the Pell) and then, yes, get loans for a public state school for two years.  But there is the ABILITY for someone to graduate from college with a bachelor's.  All the while, drawing the necessities from the government and qualifying while working in order to cover things not covered like soap.  

 

Maybe there is some piece  to this I don't comprehend?

 

 

If Billy is working 8 hours a day and would rather be paid for his eight hours, then Billy is going to need to put 2 hours a night into studying.  And Billy, knowing he'd like to bank some money, best not choose Art History as his degree.  (No offense to Art History majors.)  Gone are the days when we can indulge ourselves in $100k of student loans and not get a job that pays decently.  So sayeth the family that had to join the Army to drop $68k in student loans AND her husband got his Masters WHILE in the Army.  It was freaking hard.  I'm not even going to candy coat it.  It was hard him getting his Masters while spending an awful lot of time in the field.  He didn't deploy but we were at Irwin, the NTC, during and immediately after 9/11 so they were spending a lot of time training deploying units.  I didn't love the time he spent away from our family to take classes and do schoolwork.  But it was a short period of putting in a huge effort for a bigger payoff.  I have no idea who Jenna is or what her Masters is in so I really can't comment.   And maybe my deal is regional here... But around here, you are employable, highly employable, with a strong work ethic and a bachelors, and for a heckuva lot more than minimum wage.

 

 

 

 

So the training I'm thinking of is specifically guilds and maybe the issue is a lack of knowledge. But there is an extreme NEED for repairmen and for certified and/or tech degrees.  For example: A/C repairmen, HVAC, pipe fitters unions, welders, skilled techs, electricians, and other skilled trades.  DS took an Intro to Engineering class last semester and people from the pipe fitters came and spoke to these kids about the level of need that exists.  Apprenticeships are available while going to school AND the starting wage after certification was around $20/hour.  We live in a fairly low to moderate COL area.

 

You are right in that they would need to prioritize school and work hours around them, but that is often why we see adults working fast food, working stocking, etc.  Wal-Mart third shift stockers here get paid $11.00/hour.  There is also work study for those that qualify.  Goodness, I just quit a job cleaning offices at night that was $11.50/hour.

 

So what I'm wondering is do I live in some kind of oasis of employment, education, and with a desperate NEED for CAPABLE employees?  Because, thus far, between my dd, ds, and future dsil, they have had no issues at all finding employment above the minimum and working around their schooling.  And, I'll add, DD and DSIL will be on their own shortly with a little one on the way.  He's going to be working, juggling school, taking on some loans, and DD will be doing in home daycare in order that she can stay home with the little one.  It isn't ideal.  It's going to be hard but a couple years of super hard, no time, pour it all into school/work will make it so that hard isn't a lifestyle.  And thank God we live in a country where that's actually possible.

 

Was your husband physically gone or in the next room? Either way, he had you to watch the children, right? Some people are trying to take classes online where kids are screaming in the next room or trying to find a babysitter to watch their kids so they can drive to the actual class. These are not all the same and none are particularly easy. I'm thinking of a scenario where Billy can do it, but not everyone is Billy. Let's say the other person is Jane. Maybe Jane is a single mother or a mom that most of the kid stuff falls on the shoulders of. When she comes home from her 8 hour day she has to make dinner, help with homework and get kids ready for bed. Her two hours is gone. It's not that she doesn't want to put in two hours of school stuff, but she has to get some sleep because she has work in the morning. It's physically demanding on her body if she doesn't go to bed. Implying she doesn't want it enough or is lazy is unfair. She might have to wake up early and get kids ready for school, pack lunches, commute to work. We don't know. What I'm saying is life is easier when you don't have a lot of other responsibilities. Not saying your husband didn't have responsibilities, but it kinda reads like he was able to pass a lot on to you in order to concentrate on work and school. Not every person has someone to offer that level of support. Maybe their responsibly isn't children, but an elderly parent. They can't find the two hours after their 8 hour shift because they have to check on Mom and talk to the caregiver. Maybe they can stay awake but mentally cannot focus that late at night. Just so many scenarios I can think of in which it's not realistic. Like my husband requires less sleep than me. So it's not fair to compare his ability to work late and come home and do school work to me doing the same thing. We're not the same person. He can knock out a full paper in a lot less time than I can.

[Bootsie]

I don't think that it's impossible to have an ethically run shareholder model at all, I just think there's more scope for problems when there's a disconnect between the labour force and the people making money out of them. It's easier to ignore when it's not on your doorstep. In the same way that I can buy a $2 shirt from target and not feel overly bad but if I actually had to go and see the factory where they were made to buy it I'd probably feel more guilt over the purchase. The disconnect doesn't mean people will act unethically but for many people it seems they actually have to physically see the consequences for it to mean much to them.

 

I watched a TED talk ages ago recommending some kind of model where employees owned a certain share in the company. I know there's a lot of nitty gritty to be ironed out but overall I really like this concept because it links output to take away pay which has to be good for motivation.

There are some employee-owned companies and some companies in which the employees own a substantial stake in the stock of the company.  This works in the workers' favor when the company is doing well. However, whenever the company does poorly they are the owners and they do poorly--as owners they are the risk takers; they get the good and the bad of being an owner.

[creekland]

But Puzder says that a restaurant that's 100% automated would have one big plus for millennials: no social interaction.

 

"Millennials like not seeing people," he says. "I've been inside restaurants where we've installed ordering kiosks ... and I've actually seen young people waiting in line to use the kiosk where there's a person standing behind the counter, waiting on nobody."" http://www.businessinsider.com/carls-jr-wants-open-automated-location-2016-3

 

Considering this and the self-check thread from a week or two ago, it seems to me that businesses are automating not just because of salaries, but due to demand from customers.  I suspect it will happen in many places even without any increase in salaries at all due to all the "pros" associated with it.

[Murphy101]

I keep hearing about teens and 20-somethings that don't like social interaction but I don't know any of them. I seems like 30-40somethings are way worse about this than the younger or older people I know.

 

Of course the people I know is an admittedly limited demographic.

[Frances]

My state has one of the highest minimum wages in the country and last year passed a bill to gradually increase it, but it does factor in COL. The state was divided into three areas based on COL and each has a different schedule for increasing the wage. My state is also unusual in that tipped workers, such as waiters and waitresses, get paid the minimum wage plus tips.

[LucyStoner]

I keep hearing about teens and 20-somethings that don't like social interaction but I don't know any of them. I seems like 30-40somethings are way worse about this than the younger or older people I know.

 

Of course the people I know is an admittedly limited demographic.

Today's teens are mostly not millennials. And the first portion of millennials are into their 30s at this point.

[heartlikealion]

Maybe it's not just a social interaction thing. I trust my eyes more than my ears. I'm a visual learner, I like to see my order in print. In drive-thrus I prefer the ones with the written screen. Not so much if they tell you to pull up before they update the screen, though. Also, it's embarrassing sometimes to be the "annoying" customer that has their order a special way. Might be faster to type it in yourself than tell someone. I am not great with all electronics, but I'm fast on a keyboard. For certain things standing in line waiting on someone else to enter info feels like the scene in Zootopia where the sloth is working at the DMV LOL

 

I don't like it when the scanner isn't in sync with the screen at the store, either. I like to see that the item rang up correctly as it happens.

Edited December 3, 2016 by heartlikealion

[Arcadia]

Considering this and the self-check thread from a week or two ago, it seems to me that businesses are automating not just because of salaries, but due to demand from customers. I suspect it will happen in many places even without any increase in salaries at all due to all the "pros" associated with it.

I think it is a chicken and egg problem. Managers of franchises are aware of rising labour costs even though minimum wage rise was gradual from $7 to $9 to $11 in my city. Ordering kiosks are already implemented in other countries like Asia. So getting a few units to roll out in big cities was a low expenditure risk. Then if customers take to the ordering kiosks, it would make management sense to reduce or maintain payroll the next time quarterly financial closing statements are done.

 

Part of my former job was logistics. When made in the USA server memory became too costly for a five year computer service contract, the project manager had to source for cheaper equivalent elsewhere. Made in Taiwan server memory from the same company was much cheaper. So the price hike did trigger a search for alternative sources which in turn means less was ordered from the US factory. I am not implying that US factory wages should match Taiwan factory wages for the same job. I am just saying that a certain level of cost does trigger a response to look for cheaper alternatives, the trigger levels are dependent on the managers.

[Murphy101]

Today's teens are mostly not millennials. And the first portion of millennials are into their 30s at this point.

Ha! I was thinking kids born since the new millennium. Oops.

 

So now it makes sense to me. Well not really but at least that jives with what I've experienced.

[katilac]

So what I'm wondering is do I live in some kind of oasis of employment, education, and with a desperate NEED for CAPABLE employees?  

 

Person after person after person on this thread have tried to explain that yes, apparently you do live in some lovely oasis of employment, education, and opportunity. Why are you so reluctant to believe them?

 

When we say that we see people every day who work hard and still can't afford the basics of life, when we say we see significant, sometimes insurmountable, obstacles in the path of people who are trying to better themselves, do you just not believe us? Do you think we are lying or having hallucinations? 

 

Please, please, stop comparing the situation of your family having to work so gosh darn hard to get what you want to the situation of people who are truly on the edge. There are people who would cut off a hand to have the chance to work that hard if it had the potential for half the results. Many people in America do not have the same opportunities that you have. 

 

In addition to living in an economically vibrant area, you have numerous other advantages. You're white, you're attractive, you had a decent primary education, and I'm guessing you don't have the wrong kind of accent or speech pattern. Don't imagine that those things don't matter. 

 

Your posts make it very clear that you do not have any idea of what it's like to be poor in America. Not low income because you're getting starting in life or training for a new job, but poor, with roadblocks at every turn and quite often little to no access to the great jobs and training and education that apparently spring up like weeds for the picking in your city.

 

One quote that shows your privilege: A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours.  At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take.  That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid.  Those are the basics of living totally covered. 

 

Ignoring the fact that minimum wage is actually less, if you think that making $8 an hour in this country truly gives you the benefits needed to have the basics of living totally covered, them I implore you to do more research. Being eligible for housing assistance might mean that you get a Section 8 voucher, which might cover some of your rental costs, if in fact you can find someone who will take your section 8 voucher. Same for childcare assistance. And I wouldn't let my dog live in some of the public housing or go to some of the daycares I have seen.  Utilities assistance does not generally mean they will pay your utilities, it often means "we will pay some of your utility bill, sometimes, if there's some money in the program, and we won't let them cut off your heat if it's actually hot or cold enough that you might die." Having a medicaid card means diddly unless you can find a provider who accepts medicaid, one that you can actually get to. And if you think that a medicaid card actually guarantees adequate medical care (adequate, not good) then that's another subject to learn more about. 

 

Don't get me wrong; I am not slamming these programs. They can do a lot of good. I am just saying that the vision of all people with minimum wage jobs (actually above minimum in your example) having enough food to eat and a small but safe place to live and adequate childcare and adequate healthcare and access to education or training is a horribly false one. Just as false as the idea that all people could move on up and improve themselves if only they weren't so gosh darn lazy. 

 

I've actually seen some great examples of people who work unbelievably hard and yet have it unbelievably rough on a reality show, Undercover Boss. I remember one episode where service workers were peeing into a bottle on their truck, because they had to make their numbers or lose their jobs. An episode was on at the gym tonight when I worked out (great timing), and one customer service worker talked about how they had only lost one job in their life, "due to a tough personal situation." The situation? His girlfriend gave birth to their daughter, who died almost right away, and he wasn't able to make it into work on Black Friday. I mean, it's sad that your baby died, but rules are rules! 

 

Extreme examples? Perhaps, but not unknown. Not even rare. People in marginal jobs, with little backup or support, are living on the edge. They get treated like shit and they take it, because losing their job is a terrifying prospect. 

 

I don't have strong views on the various minimum wage propositions, bc I haven't researched them enough. I do have very strong views about thinking that everyone in this country has access to all that they need. I have very strong views about thinking that jobs and education and training are there for the taking, for everyone, and if you aren't making it then you must not be working hard enough. 

 

It's brutal out there for a lot of folks. No one is saying that lazy people don't exist, but don't make assumptions. Don't look at the tip of the iceberg, which is all you can see, and think that you know what lies underneath. Don't look at the wonderful things that surround you and think that they surround everyone. Don't think that because you worked hard and made it, then the people who don't make it must be at fault. Have some compassion. Realize that your world is not everyone's world. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by katilac

[Guest]

Ha! I was thinking kids born since the new millennium. Oops.

 

So now it makes sense to me. Well not really but at least that jives with what I've experienced.

I'm a Millennial, and 30 - we are 17-36 at this point, of I'm calculating my generations correctly. Edited December 3, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[heartlikealion]

I know it's been said before, but different people define Millennial differently. I refuse to call myself one and I'm 34. I usually lump myself in Generation X. I can relate to part of this list: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/signs-youre-stuck-between-gen-x-and-millennials?utm_term=.bybjGE6y6#.cyk8325o5 (I was using email in high school and not a typewriter).

[Bluegoat]

Since a shareholder provides capital to a business, how is a shareholder doing nothing?

 

Is it immoral to sell anything for more than I paid for it (a machine, a painting, an ounce of gold, etc.)? 

 

The shareholder isn't doing any work.  He or she owns some of the material aspect of the business, someone else does the actual work, and the managers, then are the employees.

 

The whole idea of owners who have no real contact with a business sets up some interesting problems.

 

As far as selling for more - if there is no added value, perhaps not. You'd still need to account for inflation.  I'm not sure about maintenance types of costs.  Perhaps they could be added.  But then, the thing is also older and perhaps less robust.

[gardenmom5]

New Jersey! All gas stations are manned. I love getting gas in NJ :)

 

oregon law requires paid attendants to pump gas.  I admit - I'd rather pump myself and save some money.  it might only be a few cents per gallon - but that adds up.  I'm not in oregon very much.  surprised me the gas on the indian reservation  (right off the freeway) was more than than the town.  in washington - at least where we've gone - reservation gas stations (again, right off the freeway) have been cheaper.

[Wheres Toto]

How many of the people who think it's easy to work two jobs and go to school have actually done it in the last 10-15 years?  How many have even worked one job, taken care of children and tried to study?

 

It's not easy, sometimes it's damn near impossible.  And it always sucks.

[LucyStoner]

I know it's been said before, but different people define Millennial differently. I refuse to call myself one and I'm 34. I usually lump myself in Generation X. I can relate to part of this list: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/signs-youre-stuck-between-gen-x-and-millennials?utm_term=.bybjGE6y6#.cyk8325o5 (I was using email in high school and not a typewriter).

Oregon Trail generation is the term that some use for the cusp between X and millennials. I think it's accurate and agree that the defining difference between the cusp and Millenials is that we didn't experience social media until after we were the age to be college graduates. We got our first cell phone in or after college and still remember card catalogs, using pay phones, zines and may have had to type our freshman college applications on preprinted forms with a type writer or even fill the form in long hand and then attach our essays we did on a computer to them but then later probably did our college transfer or grad school applications online, lol.

 

http://mashable.com/2015/05/21/oregon-trail-generation/#72bBpyf.ukqF

Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I'm a Millennial, and 30 - we are 17-36 at this point, of I'm calculating my generations correctly.

Some demographers say that Millenials are as old as 40 and other say they are as young as 12. Some say the last Millenials are 21 now and were born in 1995.

 

The most common starting years for Millenials are 1981-1983 and the most commonly held ending years are 1996-2000.

 

Demographers never all agree.

 

I am 36 and I definitely find I have more in common, in terms of paradigm, cultural references and shared childhood experiences with people 2-5 years older than me than those just 3-5 years younger than me. I remember sitting though the movies American Pie and Bring it On when I was in college, having taken my little brother to see them, and thinking that I was on one side of a generational split and my brother's friends just barely on the other. My now husband was with us and had the same thought.

Edited December 3, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

Here the agency in charge of section 8 opens its waiting list about once every 2-4 years. They typically receive in excess of 20,000 applications and usually put just 2000-3000 of those families in the waiting list. The other 17-18K applicants don't go onto the list. The waiting list can take 2-5 years. Sometimes less but rarely. So no, most minimum wage heads of households do not have access to a housing subsidy. Getting a new section 8 voucher is like winning the lottery here.

 

And if you saw the home my SIL and my niece and nephew rent with their section 8 voucher, you would probably not want your family living there. The one they have now is better than the last one. The last one was barely habitable with a landlord who was crazy and tried to illegally evict my SIL, threatening to give the deposit back to her abusive spouse who was forced out of the home because of DV charges and restraining orders if she didn't agree to the landlord's illegal timeframe for notification.

[bookbard]

As someone who is not from the US, I think raising the minimum wage is just one of the many things you need to do. This board has been an eye-opener to me, especially in regards to the cost of health care. The very first thing that needs to be done is taxing the rich. Over here in Australia, top tax bracket (45% I believe) kicks in when you earn 180,000 or more. I read (correct me if I'm wrong), that your top tax bracket (33%) only kicks in when you earn over 600,000. That's just - unbelievable.

 

Raise your income tax, use it to provide medicare to all, make a rule that the govt will not supply medications unless the price is fair (as they do in Australia), and yes, raise your minimum wage. You will have a healthier, happier population.

 

Of course, I can give a list of things we should do over here. We need to close the camps, go after company tax evaders, and most of all, care for the indigenous people of our country - who have a lower standard of living than any indigenous people of any country. 

 

In regards to the low paid childcare workers, that's an issue here too. One govt legislated that there must be a pay rise and a lower staff/child ratio. Unfortunately, the next govt was led by a PM whose wife owned childcare centres, so you know, she wasn't keen on having to pay more. So I think that law hasn't gone anywhere (again - correct me if I'm wrong). Childcare isn't going away. Paying people more helps everyone, even in a capitalist model (they have more money to spend, hurray!)  And I agree - the year I worked in a preschool was one of the hardest years of my life. It isn't a cushy job, that's for sure.

[Tammi K]

My daughter completed the first EMT course. I saw the hours of studying she needed to do because the test is precise, exacting, and demands excellence. (Perhaps it is not the same everywhere, but she had to verbally identify EVERY move she made, basically think out loud. Mistakes aren't allowed.)

I know the amount of hours she is required to work and the hours of class time she is required to put in before she can test for the next level. And so on for several more levels. 

 

EMTs make minimum wage. Forgive me for thinking someone who works a such a job should make more than a kid who flips burgers.  There is nothing wrong with flipping burgers. I worked at a fast food place as a young adult. But, until we find a way to pay front line jobs a decent wage, I have a hard time agreeing to pay the taco maker the same as the young adult who helps pull me out of a flipped over vehicle.  (And, if you've seen the way people in Alaska drive, you would understand that the 'flipped over vehicle' thing is actually a fairly common event. :P )

 

[mom2scouts]

My National Guard soldier son would be thrilled right now if the government that required him to do an *extra* 2.5 week training last month, taking him away from his full time hourly job, would've paid him at all. His pay for training doesn't even add up to full time pay at the current minimum wage rate and, oops, they forgot to pay all the guys who went. They might get paid one of these days, but that doesn't help with the rent now. :thumbdown:

[Bootsie]

The shareholder isn't doing any work.  He or she owns some of the material aspect of the business, someone else does the actual work, and the managers, then are the employees.

 

The whole idea of owners who have no real contact with a business sets up some interesting problems.

 

As far as selling for more - if there is no added value, perhaps not. You'd still need to account for inflation.  I'm not sure about maintenance types of costs.  Perhaps they could be added.  But then, the thing is also older and perhaps less robust.

But the shareholder is letting the business use capital that belongs to the shareholder.  The shareholder could do something else with this capital.  

Receiving a return to capital encourages the shareholder to invest capital in the business--without it the business would not exist and the jobs for the workers wouldn't exist.  Without this incentive, why would the shareholder invest his or her capital in the business?

[heartlikealion]

Person after person after person on this thread have tried to explain that yes, apparently you do live in some lovely oasis of employment, education, and opportunity. Why are you so reluctant to believe them?

 

When we say that we see people every day who work hard and still can't afford the basics of life, when we say we see significant, sometimes insurmountable, obstacles in the path of people who are trying to better themselves, do you just not believe us? Do you think we are lying or having hallucinations? 

 

Please, please, stop comparing the situation of your family having work so gosh darn hard to get what you want to the situation of people who are truly on the edge. There are people who would cut off a hand to have the chance to work that hard if it had the potential for half the results. Many people in America do not have the same opportunities that you have. 

 

In addition to living in an economically vibrant area, you have numerous other advantages. You're white, you're attractive, you had a decent primary education, and I'm guessing you don't have the wrong kind of accent or speech pattern. Don't imagine that those things don't matter. 

 

Your posts make it very clear that you do not have any idea of what it's like to be poor in America. Not low income because you're getting starting in life or training for a new job, but poor, with roadblocks at every turn and quite often little to no access to the great jobs and training and education that apparently spring up like weeds for the picking in your city.

 

One quote that shows your privilege: A full time worker bee works 2,080 hours.  At $8/hour that's $16,600 give or take.  That then qualifies them for food stamps, housing assistance, utilities assistance, daycare assistance, Pell grants, and Medicaid.  Those are the basics of living totally covered. 

 

Ignoring the fact that minimum wage is actually less, if you think that making $8 an hour in this country truly gives you the benefits needed to have the basics of living totally covered, them I implore you to do more research. Being eligible for housing assistance might mean that you get a Section 8 voucher, which might cover some of your rental costs, if in fact you can find someone who will take your section 8 voucher. Same for childcare assistance. And I wouldn't let my dog live in some of the public housing or go to some of the daycares I have seen.  Utilities assistance does not generally mean they will pay your utilities, it often means "we will pay some of your utility bill, sometimes, if there's some money in the program, and we won't let them cut off your heat if it's actually hot or cold enough that you might die." Having a medicaid card means diddly unless you can find a provider who accepts medicaid, one that you can actually get to. And if you think that a medicaid card actually guarantees adequate medical care (adequate, not good) then that's another subject to learn more about. 

 

Don't get me wrong; I am not slamming these programs. They can do a lot of good. I am just saying that the vision of all people with minimum wage jobs (actually above minimum in your example) having enough food to eat and a small but safe place to live and adequate childcare and adequate healthcare and access to education or training is a horribly false one. Just as false as the idea that all people could move on up and improve themselves if only they weren't so gosh darn lazy. 

 

I've actually seen some great examples of people who work unbelievably hard and yet have it unbelievably rough on a reality show, Undercover Boss. I remember one episode where service workers were peeing into a bottle on their truck, because they had to make their numbers or lose their jobs. An episode was on at the gym tonight when I worked out (great timing), and one customer service worker talked about how they had only lost one job in their life, "due to a tough personal situation." The situation? His girlfriend gave birth to their daughter, who died almost right away, and he wasn't able to make it into work on Black Friday. I mean, it's sad that your baby died, but rules are rules! 

 

Extreme examples? Perhaps, but not unknown. Not even rare. People in marginal jobs, with little backup or support, are living on the edge. They get treated like shit and they take it, because losing their job is a terrifying prospect. 

 

I don't have strong views on the various minimum wage propositions, bc I haven't researched them enough. I do have very strong views about thinking that everyone in this country has access to all that they need. I have very strong views about thinking that jobs and education and training are there for the taking, for everyone, and if you aren't making it then you must not be working hard enough. 

 

It's brutal out there for a lot of folks. No one is saying that lazy people don't exist, but don't make assumptions. Don't look at the tip of the iceberg, which is all you can see, and think that you know what lies underneath. Don't look at the wonderful things that surround you and think that they surround everyone. Don't think that because you worked hard and made it, then the people who don't make it must be at fault. Have some compassion. Realize that your world is not everyone's world. 

 

Thank you. This definitely addresses some issues with gaps in assistance. I'm going to piggy back on this. Depending on what state you live in Medicaid may only be for children and pregnant women. If both parents aren't receiving health benefits from their jobs then they probably go without.

 

You can qualify to live in some low-income subdivisions without anything but proof of income but those typically aren't ideal neighborhoods. And if you do apply for a voucher it can take time to receive an answer. BTDT.