S/O....what do you think would happen...living wage

[Ottakee]

In a spin off on the SS thread, what do you think would happen if employers paid a living wage again? One where one parent working full time could support a spouse, a few children , have housing , a car, etc?

 

Years ago a father (or mother) could take a full time facotry job and provide a modest, but adequate life for their family. Now, at least in our area, even with 2 parents working full time many families are still barely making ends meet and qualify for public assistance.

 

For instance, a job my husband had 25 years ago that included full benefits, bonuses, and vacation time, now pays LESS per hour (NOT adjusted for inflation, pure and simple $2/less an hour now) than it did then with no benefits, no bonuses, and no laid vacation time.

 

Do you think if there were many more jobs available that paid a living wage would the other household wage earner return to being a full time parent or reduce their hours?

[TranquilMind]

In a spin off on the SS thread, what do you think would happen if employers paid a living wage again? One where one parent working full time could support a spouse, a few children , have housing , a car, etc?

 

Years ago a father (or mother) could take a full time facotry job and provide a modest, but adequate life for their family. Now, at least in our area, even with 2 parents working full time many families are still barely making ends meet and qualify for public assistance.

 

For instance, a job my husband had 25 years ago that included full benefits, bonuses, and vacation time, now pays LESS per hour (NOT adjusted for inflation, pure and simple $2/less an hour now) than it did then with no benefits, no bonuses, and no laid vacation time.

 

Do you think if there were many more jobs available that paid a living wage would the other household wage earner return to being a full time parent or reduce their hours?

Unpopular point, but when women largely stayed home with their families, there were half the workers andso they made more money (relatively). 

 

I know that my father was able to buy a house as a low paid government worker, and support a wife and several kids.

 

So one step forward, and two steps back. 

Good question. 

[AK_Mom4]

I dunno. I never saw this "living wage" growing up that everyone seems to think was common. There were people with really good jobs and there were families like us that only made it because of a subsistence lifestyle (hunting/fishing).

 

I don't think you could ever support a family on a single entry level salary. Not back then and not today. To reach the level of being able to support a family on one income usually takes 4-5 years of experience at least, with a good employment record.

[Excelsior! Academy]

Goods and services would increase in price to cover the cost of wages.

[Excelsior! Academy]

double post

Edited March 28, 2016 by Excelsior! Academy

[bettyandbob]

I don't think everyone was easily able to get living wage type jobs. There were always people who had less even with a parent working full time. 

 

I think people idolize the idea that women used to be full time homemakers. I think that was a middle class, white, mid twentieth century thing. A small cultural group for a brief period. 

 

One of my grandmothers worked as a teacher even when her children were young. One of my grandmothers was a homemaker, but while her husband worked she was managing a having multiple borders living in the family home providing meals and laundry service to the borders, so she really was working too. My mother finished college while I was in preschool and started full time work when I started elementary school. 

 

If the opportunity for people to have factory type work and be paid enough to support a family was available again I'm sure some people would seek it out. I also many families would remain 2 income families. A family does not need one full time SAH adult for the family to provide a stable healthy environment for children. Some families would seek the 2 incomes at a higher rate because it would mean even more security/education/opportunity for the kids. Some families would seek to be 2 income because both people like the feeling of being a person who works for monetary gain brings. 

 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that being home used to be more of a job than it is now.

You really could save a great deal of money by sewing your family's clothing, gardening and preserving food, etc.  Cooking from scratch was pretty much necessary.  Lots of consumer goods were just not readily available in stores.  When my great-grandfather was 5 years old he was told that from then on he had to knit his own socks.  It was really simple--they taught him how to do it, and then if he wanted to have any, he had to make them himself, from then on.  I imagine that at some point his wife took on that job, but everyday socks were not a purchased item.

 

This lifestyle changed, but the part of it that makes the home more of a refuge for young children is not as easy to farm out or purchase than the rest, so there is tension around the whole issue.

[Tanaqui]

Goods and services would increase in price to cover the cost of wages.

 

This is something we frequently hear, but the evidence is a little flimsy and economists are divided on what effect, if any, raising the minimum wage would have on the economy.

 

At any rate, goods and services have already increased in price. The minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation even a little bit.

 

[Lawana]

I dunno. I never saw this "living wage" growing up that everyone seems to think was common. There were people with really good jobs and there were families like us that only made it because of a subsistence lifestyle (hunting/fishing).

 

I don't think you could ever support a family on a single entry level salary. Not back then and not today. To reach the level of being able to support a family on one income usually takes 4-5 years of experience at least, with a good employment record.

What do you consider "supporting a family"?

What standard of living qualifies?

 

In the early 60's, my father worked a minimum wage government job as the soul wage earner for a family of 6 at the time. My parents rented, then owned (no down payment, what was previously a rental payment became a mortgage pmt in an owner financed deal) a 2 bedroom, 1 bath house. Owned 1 older car, no clothes dryer, no A/C, no TV. Kids were very small, cloth diapers, hand me down clothes. Mother cooked extremely frugally, minimal meat, bought 50 pound bags of non-instant powdered milk, canned fruit, made bread. No convenience foods of any sort, including dry cereal. Never ate out. Clothing was minimal. Heat turned down to 50 at night.

 

Health insurance was provided by job, but did not cover well care. We were healthy for the most part, getting the usual childhood illnesses before MMR vaxes.

 

It was by no means glamorous, and there was no purchased entertainment, but we were warm, fed and clean.

 

Just curious if you consider that standard of living to qualify as a living wage?

[EmilyGF]

Our city's minimum wage is on its way up to $15/hour.

Guess who takes your order at Panera now? An iPad. 

 

A "living wage" would price people out of the work force who don't provide that level of value while increasing the cost of goods. It would mean teens couldn't get part time jobs and develop their employable skills. It would mean much more mechanization.

 

Emily

[marbel]

What do you consider "supporting a family"?

What standard of living qualifies?

 

In the early 60's, my father worked a minimum wage government job as the soul wage earner for a family of 6 at the time. My parents rented, then owned (no down payment, what was previously a rental payment became a mortgage pmt in an owner financed deal) a 2 bedroom, 1 bath house. Owned 1 older car, no clothes dryer, no A/C, no TV. Kids were very small, cloth diapers, hand me down clothes. Mother cooked extremely frugally, minimal meat, bought 50 pound bags of non-instant powdered milk, canned fruit, made bread. No convenience foods of any sort, including dry cereal. Never ate out. Clothing was minimal. Heat turned down to 50 at night.

 

Health insurance was provided by job, but did not cover well care. We were healthy for the most part, getting the usual childhood illnesses before MMR vaxes.

 

It was by no means glamorous, and there was no purchased entertainment, but we were warm, fed and clean.

 

Just curious if you consider that standard of living to qualify as a living wage?

 

This sounds a lot like our family (I was born in 1956), though my dad worked in the private sector.  When my folks bought our house, they had a couple of acres, so my mom had a big vegetable garden. I don't remember if we ate a lot of meat or not; I don't think so.  Probably mostly ground meat.   It was exciting when we'd get surplus cheese from the school. Sometimes I can almost capture the taste of it. Not quite American... it had a distinctive flavor.  I loved it.  :-)

 

At that time, pretty much everyone I knew had their mom at home during the day.   That was part of the reason, I think, that my friends and I could roam our semi-rural neighborhood at will after school and during the summer.  There was always someone home to help if there was trouble - or call a parent if someone misbehaved. 

 

My cousins, who lived in the city, had working moms, nicer houses, more luxuries (backyard above-ground pool, more/nicer clothing).  Two of my aunts (dad's sisters) were cocktail waitresses in a bowling alley; one worked in a store.   (My mother never did feel like she fit in with her sisters-in-law. :-) )

 

It just makes sense to me that if more people enter the workforce, wages will go down.  So if over a period of time - say, late 60s onward, maybe? - a lot of women decided to go to work, supply of workers would increase and so wages would be able to decrease.  I am no economist and I don't have any cites for this; it's just the conclusions I've come to based on my early life.  Obviously a small sample so I'm not assuming my experience is universal.

 

But when I entered college in 1975, tuition at the local state U was $200/semester.  That same school is over $7000 per semester now.  Still relatively cheap but I don't think wages have gone up that much. 

 

[DawnM]

Would people also be willing to go back to 1700 sq. ft. track homes (or whatever size), one car, and only buying what they could afford?

 

I see the American dream as skewed now to mean that everyone "NEEDS" to have 3,500 sq. ft. homes, two cars, vacations, and all sorts of other things.  

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by DawnM

[EmilyGF]

I think that being home used to be more of a job than it is now.

You really could save a great deal of money by sewing your family's clothing, gardening and preserving food, etc.  Cooking from scratch was pretty much necessary.  Lots of consumer goods were just not readily available in stores.  When my great-grandfather was 5 years old he was told that from then on he had to knit his own socks.  It was really simple--they taught him how to do it, and then if he wanted to have any, he had to make them himself, from then on.  I imagine that at some point his wife took on that job, but everyday socks were not a purchased item.

 

This lifestyle changed, but the part of it that makes the home more of a refuge for young children is not as easy to farm out or purchase than the rest, so there is tension around the whole issue.

In the 1960s, women spent about 44 hours/week on domestic chores. 

 

My sister spent some time in Africa and came home telling about how little she could get done, even with a maid. Her maid basically did enough food prep to get the food to the point we purchase our food like from the grocery store. She had a lot more cleaning to do than we do here (more dirt roads, less pavement) with worse tools. Her fridge was so small that she had to go grocery shopping much more frequently.

 

Just think about what laundry used to be like. :-) One older mom told me her husband would know what sort of day she had had based on how many diapers he saw on the line outside when he came home from work.

 

My grandmother made all of her family's clothes by hand, and because labor was so expensive then, it actually saved money. Now, labor is so cheap and mechanized that you can't buy new cloth, sew clothes, and save money. Altering clothes from the thrift store does save money, though, I recognize.

 

Emily

[TranquilMind]

I dunno. I never saw this "living wage" growing up that everyone seems to think was common. There were people with really good jobs and there were families like us that only made it because of a subsistence lifestyle (hunting/fishing).

 

I don't think you could ever support a family on a single entry level salary. Not back then and not today. To reach the level of being able to support a family on one income usually takes 4-5 years of experience at least, with a good employment record.

This simply isn't true.   My dad did it.  It wasn't easy in those early years but they did it and bought a modest house.     

[TranquilMind]

Would people also be willing to go back to 1700 sq. ft. track homes, one car, and only buying what they could afford?

 

I see the American dream as skewed now to mean that everyone "NEEDS" to have 3,500 sq. ft. homes, two cars, vacations, and all sorts of other things.  

Some of us always stayed there, regardless of educational and professional attainments.   We didn't have a second car for EIGHT YEARS. 

[DawnM]

Some of us always stayed there, regardless of educational and professional attainments.   We didn't have a second car for EIGHT YEARS. 

 

Right, but I mean as a whole......is AMERICA ready to do that?  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Goods and services would increase in price to cover the cost of wages.

Not across the board, no, or at least not at the level you imagine.

Edited March 27, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[TranquilMind]

What do you consider "supporting a family"?

What standard of living qualifies?

 

In the early 60's, my father worked a minimum wage government job as the soul wage earner for a family of 6 at the time. My parents rented, then owned (no down payment, what was previously a rental payment became a mortgage pmt in an owner financed deal) a 2 bedroom, 1 bath house. Owned 1 older car, no clothes dryer, no A/C, no TV. Kids were very small, cloth diapers, hand me down clothes. Mother cooked extremely frugally, minimal meat, bought 50 pound bags of non-instant powdered milk, canned fruit, made bread. No convenience foods of any sort, including dry cereal. Never ate out. Clothing was minimal. Heat turned down to 50 at night.

 

Health insurance was provided by job, but did not cover well care. We were healthy for the most part, getting the usual childhood illnesses before MMR vaxes.

 

It was by no means glamorous, and there was no purchased entertainment, but we were warm, fed and clean.

 

Just curious if you consider that standard of living to qualify as a living wage?

You have just described my childhood as well, and we never thought we lacked anything in those days.  We had food and a home. 

[TranquilMind]

Right, but I mean as a whole......is AMERICA ready to do that?  

Well, I guess that depends upon how "America" wishes to live in later years?   Because they are coming for all of us.  If you live beyond your means in the early years, it is going to be very hard to correct that, as we are seeing.  The politicians just keep on increasing the national debt. 

[Tanaqui]

A "living wage" would price people out of the work force who don't provide that level of value while increasing the cost of goods. It would mean teens couldn't get part time jobs and develop their employable skills. It would mean much more mechanization.

 

We're already heading in that direction.

 

Of course, there's a real problem with this, and that's the fact that you can't sell sandwiches to iPads. Can't sell them cars, or houses, or computers, or subscriptions to Netflix either. So one of two things is going to have to happen. Either the corporations are going to have to acknowledge this fact and stop trying to give their CEOs enormous bonuses every year, and start paying their employees (and hiring more employees)... or we're going to have to institute a minimum income, sooner or later, one that covers not just the necessities needed to survive but enough small treats to keep our economy going. Money, after all, trickles up.

 

If you live beyond your means in the early years, it is going to be very hard to correct that, as we are seeing.

 

Saving money might be good for your bottom line, but it's really bad for our economy, which is driven by unending growth.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Tanaqui

[DawnM]

Well, I guess that depends upon how "America" wishes to live in later years?   Because they are coming for all of us.  If you live beyond your means in the early years, it is going to be very hard to correct that, as we are seeing.  The politicians just keep on increasing the national debt. 

 

We can see how America currently thinks they can live in later years......things have to drastically change in the way people are willing to live to even compare today with 1960.  That is my point.

[Lanny]

Our city's minimum wage is on its way up to $15/hour.

Guess who takes your order at Panera now? An iPad. 

 

A "living wage" would price people out of the work force who don't provide that level of value while increasing the cost of goods. It would mean teens couldn't get part time jobs and develop their employable skills. It would mean much more mechanization.

 

Emily

 

+1   In a few years, we will see what happens, to the creation of new jobs, in places like Seattle, San Francisco and other cities, where they have or are in the process of raising the minimum wage.  Will employers flee those cities or reduce their staffing there?  For many years, many people, for example in government or union jobs, were  paid far more than their education and skills would normally justify, solely because they were in a union job. Now, the percentage of people in private industry who are members of a union has declined.   I lived in a small city where there was a small factory. When the company closed that factory, the employees were accustomed to being paid far more than their education and skills justified, to a normal business trying to compete in the marketplace.  When they tried to find jobs that paid equally well, they could not find them.   Current businesses in Seattle and other cities that cannot move (Franchise restaurants, hotels, etc.) will stay where they are, but it is unlikely new ones will be built. The new Franchise businesses, restaurants, hotels, etc., that depend upon minimum wage employees will probably be established in other cities. There is no "free Lunch" and raising wages will probably result in higher prices to their customers and fewer employees being hired.  In 5 or 10 years, what the increase in the Minimum wage did for people, good and bad, will be known.  

Edited March 27, 2016 by Lanny

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Individuals earning a living wage (can afford basic needs like food, shelter, clothing and other necessities), are consumers who put the money back into the economy.  

[Reefgazer]

Same here. We never felt deprived at home as children, but when I when I look back and realize how little we had, I'm amazed how my parents made it and kept us all happy.

 

You have just described my childhood as well, and we never thought we lacked anything in those days. We had food and a home.

Edited March 27, 2016 by reefgazer

[DesertBlossom]

Define "living wage." I read that if you make over 35k/year you are in the top 1% globally. Poverty is the default. Only a tiny fraction of the world's inhabitants have ever enjoyed the prosperity that our middle class enjoys (like running water, electricity, adequate food, cars, TVs, multiple clothes, etc)

[Jane in NC]

I grew up in the industrial Midwest where jobs paid well and supplied decent benefits. In my neighborhood there were families in which one parent worked, sometimes two. College was not emphasized in that world but for someone like my husband whose father was a professor and who grew up in a college neighborhood, it was not unusual for a mother to be at home while kids were younger, then return to the working world (often professional world) when kids entered school. His family emphasized college--not necessarily state schools but the best fit for the kid.  So I can see why his mother's income was probably needed even then to pay tuition, room and board, etc.

 

I can honestly say that both my parents and my husband's parents lived modestly compared to many families today.  Houses were small although both my parents and my husband's thought vacations were important.  We often camped.  My husband's parents bought a modest cottage after receiving an inheritance.

 

It seems to me that vacations or shacks at the lake or in the mountains were not unusual for families that I knew.  Living where I live (tourist destination), I see many families continue this tradition of a vacation rental or even ownership of a second home.  But clearly these families are from a different part of the economic spectrum than families in my neighborhood growing up.

 

The top quintile in income is not getting any poorer. 

 

Where I live, people who make minimum wage (and there are plenty) rely on social services to fill in the gaps.  Those of you who worry about rising minimum wages:  I am already paying subsidies for employees of a well known box store because their workers cannot live here on minimum wage.  I'd like to try an experiment in which stock holders earn a few pennies less, top brass earn several thousand less, and boots on the ground earn more.

 

Minimum wage in NC is $7.25 an hour.  This has not stopped Panera for installing computerized self order stations.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Minimum wage in NC is $7.25 an hour.  This has not stopped Panera for installing computerized self order stations.

 

And why would it? They can save money, they'll do it, no matter who else pays.

 

I'm waiting for self-driving trucks. Do you realize that in most states in the US, the most common job is "trucker"? And all those truckers have an infrastructure to support them - gas stations, motels, diners, all depend on truckers.

 

When those jobs go away, we'll finally have to re-evaluate how we allocate goods and resources in our society. It's going to be a painful transition.

[Jane in NC]

Define "living wage." I read that if you make over 35k/year you are in the top 1% globally. Poverty is the default. Only a tiny fraction of the world's inhabitants have ever enjoyed the prosperity that our middle class enjoys (like running water, electricity, adequate food, cars, TVs, multiple clothes, etc)

 

This may be true but I am really glad that people in my community have flush toilets and running water for the sake of public health.  I'd rather not have people living in shanties in my community.  I'd rather not have children work in factories.

 

Just because something is the global norm does not make it right for the wealthiest country on the planet.

 

Or maybe I am missing the point of your post. Are you advocating for a redistribution of wealth to the poorest of the poor?

 

[Lawana]

Same here. We never felt deprived at home as children, but when I when I look back and realize how little we had, I'm amazed how my parents made it and kept us all happy.

 

 

Coming from a generation whose parents were born during/grew up in the depression, the very modest standard we grew up with far exceeded the conditions that some of our parents experienced. And we grew up in neighborhoods that were full of families sharing the same conditions. Sure, we knew there were many better off than us, but we had mostly the same things the neighbors had, so we did not feel deprived.

 

My parents, especially my father, experienced true deprivation and poverty. Both grew up on farms, so at least my mother had enough to eat--just no cash. My father's mother was deaf and his father abandoned the family when my father was 4. They lived in a shack on his mother's family's farm--they were all required to work the farm, but were not given compensatory food. They were hungry.

And neither of my parents had running water or electricity.

[Lanny]

We live in a different country, and this did not involve the Minimum Legal wage here.  We had an employee who worked  in our house, Monday thru Friday (she came at 8 and left at 5) and on Saturday mornings.  We paid her the legal Minimum wage (or more, I can't remember) and the Mandatory Medical Insurance, Vacation Days, Holidays, etc., required by law.  She worked for us on 2 occasions and she was the best employee we'd ever had. The house was very relaxed with her here.  Then, the government put in an additional requirement. The requirement was that we also provide a Pension for her. The Pension would have cost us more than we paid for her Medical Insurance.  I think it might have cost us almost as much as her Salary.  That was at a time when our family income had been drastically reduced. Reluctantly, we had to let her go.  It was not because we were opposed to the idea of her having a Pension. We were all for that, but we simply could not afford the entire package.  That may be similar, to what may happen, with the substantial increases in the Minimum Wage, in many places in the USA.  I would be the first to agree that one cannot live on $7.25 an hour, in an extremely high COL area, such as San Francisco.  To live on $7.25 an hour, in the lowest COL area in the USA would be very difficult, but in San Francisco, NYC, Washington, DC, etc. it would seem to be impossible.  Certainly, the "Quality of Life" one can purchase while earning $7.25 an hour is very bad. There are no easy answers to complex problems. We have not had an employee in our house since we let her go, years ago.

[gardenmom5]

I expect prices to rise.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Living wage, to me, means being able to afford safe and clean accommodations, food, clothing, medical care, and other necessities for one person.  What dollar amount provides that varies by area, as does what is meant by necessities. Reasonable transportation is something that might vary by area.  In some places you need a car to get to work, other areas walking, biking or public transportation are reasonable options. 

[EmseB]

The top quintile in income is not getting any poorer.

This may be true, but people do move in and out of this group. It's not stagnant by any means. And, why would we want any quintile to get poorer? Created wealth is good for everyone. Not in the sense of the often maligned and faulty trickle-down characterization, but in the basic fact that the world as a whole is better off with more rather than less. The fact that the wealthy make more money at a faster rate is simple math, not an indictment of an airways changing group of people.

 

Also, you're not subsidizing everyone who makes minimum wage because not everyone is trying to support themselves with a minimum wage job. I worked for minimum wage and lived with my parents. I needed pocket money, like most of the teens I worked with. Saying an employer is responsible for completely providing for their employee is just silly. We might as well then simply mandate via law that everyone should be employed. Where does the money come from? Economics does not work this way.

Edited March 27, 2016 by JodiSue

[Jane in NC]

This may be true, but people do move in and out of this group. It's not stagnant by any means. And, why would we want any quintile to get poorer? Created wealth is good for everyone. Not in the sense of the often maligned and faulty trickle-down characterization, but in the basic fact that the world as a whole is better off with more rather than less. The fact that the wealthy make more money at a faster rate is simple math, not an indictment of an airways changing group of people.

 

Also, you're not subsidizing everyone who makes minimum wage because not everyone is trying to support themselves with a minimum wage job. I worked for minimum wage and lived with my parents. I needed pocket money, like most of the teens I worked with. Saying an employer is responsible for completely providing for their employee is just silly. We might as well then simply mandate via law that everyone should be employed. Where does the money come from? Economics does not work this way.

 

As a member of the top quintile, I am suggesting that we can afford to give more.  I don't own Walmart stock but I do own Whole Foods which is annually recognized for good employment practices.  I make my investment choices based on my ethics.  Similarly I make purchasing decisions based on not only what is best for me but what is best for my community.  I recognize that not everyone is as fortunate as I am.

 

In my community, many of the people in minimum wage jobs are not teens.  Perhaps that is the case in your community. 

 

I am not suggesting that an employer completely provide for employees.  I am suggesting that an employer pay employees sufficiently  so that they do not require SNAP.

 

 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This may be true, but people do move in and out of this group. It's not stagnant by any means. And, why would we want any quintile to get poorer? Created wealth is good for everyone. Not in the sense of the often maligned and faulty trickle-down characterization, but in the basic fact that the world as a whole is better off with more rather than less. The fact that the wealthy make more money at a faster rate is simple math, not an indictment of an airways changing group of people.

 

Also, you're not subsidizing everyone who makes minimum wage because not everyone is trying to support themselves with a minimum wage job. I worked for minimum wage and lived with my parents. I needed pocket money, like most of the teens I worked with. Saying an employer is responsible for completely providing for their employee is just silly. We might as well then simply mandate via law that everyone should be employed. Where does the money come from? Economics does not work this way.

 

 

[MaeFlowers]

I have to agree with other posters. I'm not sure that people could always live on a single salary.

My parents were born in the early 40's and my grandparents had very different lifestyles. My father's grandparents were college educated and very wealthy and although his mother was a single mother who worked, they still had quite a bit more than average.

On the flip side, my maternal grandparents were farm people. My grandmother did have a high school education but grandfather was orphaned and only made it to 7th grade. He was lucky to learn a trade but they were definitely not wealthy and my grandmother worked to help pay the bills.

I think we are comparing apples and oranges in many ways. I think in the 50's, there was much more trade work available. You could, with a 7th grade education, still support your family. Now, college educations are required for almost everything. Especially if you want to be able to move up in the company.

Second, people lived differently. They didn't have cable, internet or cell phones. Their closets were tiny. Health insurance wasn't normal. You paid cash for health care. I could go on.

Anyway, I think minimum wage not being sufficient is part of a more complex problem for our country. Or better put. I don't think minimum wage is the issue, ita a symptom of other issues in our country that we need to address.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This may be true, but people do move in and out of this group. It's not stagnant by any means. And, why would we want any quintile to get poorer? Created wealth is good for everyone. Not in the sense of the often maligned and faulty trickle-down characterization, but in the basic fact that the world as a whole is better off with more rather than less. The fact that the wealthy make more money at a faster rate is simple math, not an indictment of an airways changing group of people.

 

Also, you're not subsidizing everyone who makes minimum wage because not everyone is trying to support themselves with a minimum wage job. I worked for minimum wage and lived with my parents. I needed pocket money, like most of the teens I worked with. Saying an employer is responsible for completely providing for their employee is just silly. We might as well then simply mandate via law that everyone should be employed. Where does the money come from? Economics does not work this way.

 

And just what the **** do you expect those who do need to survive on minimum wage to do?

Reality: we do not have enough higher wage jobs for everyone.

Reality: we (as a society) do have certain jobs that will need to be done.

 

We can either set a higher minimum wage or accept that as a country we will need to subsidize some people who are working full time so they can survive. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm learning towards no because I think some people work for reasons other than having enough to modestly live on. In other words, many want more than that.  I also think probably some have 2 wage earners because that offers more security.  If one loses their job, there is a second wage earner so it's not sooo scary.  Although who knows.  Depends on how much money they are spending also. 

 

 

[livetoread]

What we see here is that the desired job for high school or 2 yr CC grads is a govt job. Compensation is very good compared to what could be had in nongovt. Doing same work.

I remember seeing a graph that showed how public sector jobs never really came back much after the recession, while private sector jobs did. I live in an area that relied heavily on manufacturing and local/state gov't work for people without college degrees. When those jobs disappeared, people had to turn to the service jobs with rotten pay and benefits.

 

Cutting state and local budgets puts more tax money back in our pockets, but it takes away decent jobs too for people who can't find anything comparable.

[ajfries]

This is something we frequently hear, but the evidence is a little flimsy and economists are divided on what effect, if any, raising the minimum wage would have on the economy.

 

At any rate, goods and services have already increased in price. The minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation even a little bit.

 

I don't know how this would work on a larger scale, but my in-laws own a fast food restaurant, and whenever minimum wage goes up they have to raise their prices to cover that cost.

[EmseB]

As a member of the top quintile, I am suggesting that we can afford to give more. I don't own Walmart stock but I do own Whole Foods which is annually recognized for good employment practices. I make my investment choices based on my ethics. Similarly I make purchasing decisions based on not only what is best for me but what is best for my community. I recognize that not everyone is as fortunate as I am.

 

In my community, many of the people in minimum wage jobs are not teens. Perhaps that is the case in your community.

 

...

 

I am suggesting that an employer pay employees sufficiently so that they do not require SNAP.

How do you quantify this? Are we talking individuals? A family of four? My brother lived for years as a single guy renting a room with others and pinching pennies in other ways. Even on minimum wage, he didn't require food assistance. So, I gather we're not talking about individuals willing to forgo their own single family home, but I'm not sure who we are talking about.

 

And, actually, youth unemployment is going up because they are priced out of the market. It's a growing problem because they don't get the job experience that helps them later in life. They are the first to lose jobs when minimum wage is increased.

 

As for being willing to give more, I'm a big proponent of reverse tithing. It's something I aspire to as our income rises. I'm not sure what prevents those in the top quintile from giving more? If one can give more and wants to do so, they definitely should. But mandating businesses to pay based on a certain standard of living, again, doesn't seem economically feasible. I don't think business owners should be mandated to "give more", as most of them out more into the economy in a year than I could ever hope to in a lifetime. I think businesses can make a choice to employ fewer people and charge higher prices to a wealthier clientele (a la whole foods) or go in a different direction and employ more people at entry level stepping stone jobs (a la wal mart). I can't afford to shop at whole foods, though I can appreciate their business model. I don't think it's wrong for them to charge higher prices vs. paying lower wages. It's two sides of the same coin. I mean, no one is mandating that I pay more for groceries to support living wages of employees at higher end stores, right? Because if they did that we would just eat less. Just like businesses hire less if they are forced to pay more for labor (a la Seattle's recent data).

[Chess Dad]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/06/raising-minimum-wage-wont-work-commentary.html

 

A living wage is a bad idea.  It all sounds great but there are bad side effects.  When you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs, businesses raise prices, or businesses can't survive.  It's one of the Liberal "Feel Good" ideas that just doesn't work.  Sounds great though.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/where-a-higher-minimum-wage-hurts-the-poor

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/labor/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws

 

There are many studies and examples that raising the minimum wage is bad.  I agree.  We have enough Socialism in America.  Of course this topic is political.  

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

How do you quantify this? Are we talking individuals? A family of four? My brother lived for years as a single guy renting a room with others and pinching pennies in other ways. Even on minimum wage, he didn't require food assistance. So, I gather we're not talking about individuals willing to forgo their own single family home, but I'm not sure who we are talking about.

 

And, actually, youth unemployment is going up because they are priced out of the market. It's a growing problem because they don't get the job experience that helps them later in life. They are the first to lose jobs when minimum wage is increased.

 

As for being willing to give more, I'm a big proponent of reverse tithing. It's something I aspire to as our income rises. I'm not sure what prevents those in the top quintile from giving more? If one can give more and wants to do so, they definitely should. But mandating businesses to pay based on a certain standard of living, again, doesn't seem economically feasible. I don't think business owners should be mandated to "give more", as most of them out more into the economy in a year than I could ever hope to in a lifetime. I think businesses can make a choice to employ fewer people and charge higher prices to a wealthier clientele (a la whole foods) or go in a different direction and employ more people at entry level stepping stone jobs (a la wal mart). I can't afford to shop at whole foods, though I can appreciate their business model. I don't think it's wrong for them to charge higher prices vs. paying lower wages. It's two sides of the same coin. I mean, no one is mandating that I pay more for groceries to support living wages of employees at higher end stores, right? Because if they did that we would just eat less. Just like businesses hire less if they are forced to pay more for labor (a la Seattle's recent data).

Evidence that youth unemployment is going up due to young people being priced out of the market?

 

Youth unemployment has been trending down in recent years after hitting a peak during the last recession. I don't know the data off hand but I believe youth unemployment was below the long term average prior to that recession.

[Reefgazer]

Same here.  My dad's family was an immigrant farm family during the depression  -  there were few poorer.  I'm stunned at what level of deprivation my dad thinks is OK; he really has a totally different perspective from me.  That said, I do not feel that the global standard of poverty, in which people do not have flush toilets, antibiotics, and shoes is OK for the wealthiest nation in the world.  I do seem to disagree with most on this board how to solve the poverty problem, but I agree that it needs to be solved and our standard can't be the Great Depression and sub-Saharan Africa standards. 

Coming from a generation whose parents were born during/grew up in the depression, the very modest standard we grew up with far exceeded the conditions that some of our parents experienced. And we grew up in neighborhoods that were full of families sharing the same conditions. Sure, we knew there were many better off than us, but we had mostly the same things the neighbors had, so we did not feel deprived.

My parents, especially my father, experienced true deprivation and poverty. Both grew up on farms, so at least my mother had enough to eat--just no cash. My father's mother was deaf and his father abandoned the family when my father was 4. They lived in a shack on his mother's family's farm--they were all required to work the farm, but were not given compensatory food. They were hungry.
And neither of my parents had running water or electricity.

 

[Mergath]

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/06/raising-minimum-wage-wont-work-commentary.html

 

A living wage is a bad idea.  It all sounds great but there are bad side effects.  When you raise the minimum wage, people lose jobs, businesses raise prices, or businesses can't survive.  It's one of the Liberal "Feel Good" ideas that just doesn't work.  Sounds great though.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-26/where-a-higher-minimum-wage-hurts-the-poor

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/labor/negative-effects-minimum-wage-laws

 

There are many studies and examples that raising the minimum wage is bad.  I agree.  We have enough Socialism in America.  Of course this topic is political.  

 

It might be political, but it wasn't partisan until you posted. If you can't have a civil discussion without partisan sneering, perhaps you'd be better off avoiding the thread.

[Lady Florida.]

I don't think everyone was easily able to get living wage type jobs. There were always people who had less even with a parent working full time. 

 

I think people idolize the idea that women used to be full time homemakers. I think that was a middle class, white, mid twentieth century thing. A small cultural group for a brief period. 

 

 

Yes, romanticizing the past is rarely a good thing. Also, it often gets things wrong because what was not worth romanticizing is ignored. 

 

This is something we frequently hear, but the evidence is a little flimsy and economists are divided on what effect, if any, raising the minimum wage would have on the economy.

 

 

 

Yep, that's been the fear mantra all through the history of the minimum wage, including at the very start. 

 

http://www.minimum-wage.org/raising-minimum-wage.asp

 

For those who think minimum wage was meant for teens and others starting out, here's a bit of history. It was intended to "maintain a minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being, without substantially curtailing employment". 

 

http://www.minimum-wage.org/history.asp

 

 

 

As for those idyllic days of the 50s and 60s, they were not everyone's reality. I was born in 1955. My parents split up in 1962. That was not a good time to be divorced or children of divorced parents unless you enjoyed being ostracized.

 

My father worked in a low level white collar job but it didn't pay enough to do much, even before my parents split up. His employer did not provide any insurance for dependents, and only provided life insurance for the employee. We rented a small house. After the split, my father rented a small efficiency apartment and my mother, brother, and I lived in the projects. Buying a house was so far out there, it wasn't even a dream. Not even if they had stayed together..

 

Dad paid child support faithfully, even adding more than what was court ordered when he could, but my mother still had to work. There wasn't much she could do with an 8th grade education and 2 kids to take care of, so she was a waitress. She often worked double, sometimes 2-1/2 shifts. It was one of the few jobs where you could go to work flat broke and come home with cash in your pocket - legally. 

 

Churches, especially our own (Catholic), wouldn't help because divorce = bad. We lived in a city and did not have back yards in which to plant a garden. I had friends whose mothers stayed home and friends whose mothers worked. It was probably about 60-40 in favor of sahms.

 

We can all add our anecdotes but the bottom line is it's always been difficult for some to earn a living wage. Of course it's possible in many cases to struggle along with the bare necessities but is that how people should live in one of the richest countries in the world? And for those who think we should be happy with the way things were and not want more, is the life I grew up in really the kind I should have striven for as an adult? For my own child/children? 

[Jane in NC]

How do you quantify this? Are we talking individuals? A family of four? My brother lived for years as a single guy renting a room with others and pinching pennies in other ways. Even on minimum wage, he didn't require food assistance. So, I gather we're not talking about individuals willing to forgo their own single family home, but I'm not sure who we are talking about.

 

 

You and I can both offer anecdotal stories but statistics may be more informative.  For example the Pew Research Center has shown that minimum wage and near minimum wage jobs are more prevalent in the South and in the leisure and tourism industry, something that is reflected within my own community.

 

Further, your brother may have been able to live a high quality life on minimum wage renting a room but this can be challenging in areas with higher costs of living or in places where the lower rents require a worker to own a reliable car for transportation.  Consider Boston, for example. Rents are higher along the T lines. Affordable rents are often in places with less frequent bus service.  Does one pay a higher rent in the city or buy a car for commutation?  Both of these are challenging on minimum wage.

 

I could write a primer on penny pinching but that does not imply that I want my fellow Americans to be subjected to hunger or lack of medical/dental care because they cannot afford these things. I believe not only in giving a hand up but also in creating an economic climate that is fair.  (This includes those elusive intro level positions of the past that have now become internships, i.e. slave labor.)

[Excelsior! Academy]

.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Excelsior! Academy

[Plateau Mama]

+1   In a few years, we will see what happens, to the creation of new jobs, in places like Seattle, San Francisco and other cities, where they have or are in the process of raising the minimum wage.  Will employers flee those cities or reduce their staffing there?  For many years, many people, for example in government or union jobs, were  paid far more than their education and skills would normally justify, solely because they were in a union job. Now, the percentage of people in private industry who are members of a union has declined.   I lived in a small city where there was a small factory. When the company closed that factory, the employees were accustomed to being paid far more than their education and skills justified, to a normal business trying to compete in the marketplace.  When they tried to find jobs that paid equally well, they could not find them.   Current businesses in Seattle and other cities that cannot move (Franchise restaurants, hotels, etc.) will stay where they are, but it is unlikely new ones will be built. The new Franchise businesses, restaurants, hotels, etc., that depend upon minimum wage employees will probably be established in other cities. There is no "free Lunch" and raising wages will probably result in higher prices to their customers and fewer employees being hired.  In 5 or 10 years, what the increase in the Minimum wage did for people, good and bad, will be known.

 

Here in Seattle the minimum wage workers are saying they were better off before they got $15/hour. Employers have cut back on benefits/perks to offset the cost. No more free meals, no free parking, less vacation, they are paying more for their health insurance etc. the other big hit is a lot of them no longer qualify for housing assistance or other govt programs.

[Entropymama]

What we see here is that the desired job for high school or 2 yr CC grads is a govt job. Compensation is very good compared to what could be had in nongovt. Doing same work.

 

I can attest to this. As a 22 year old with an associate's degree from a community college I was able to land a city government job that paid $21/hour and had amazing health benefits (this was over 10 years ago, so I don't know what it's like now). I couldn't get anything anywhere close to that in the private sector. It was a dream job.