Do you think a lot would change if jobs paid a living wage?

[Lanny]

Yes, that's the future. It's important for our young people to look to be the one designing, manufacturing, or servicing the automated machines/robots, because they're coming. I don't know that they will totally replace people, but they will definately reduce the number of people needed.

 

Going after the wealth through heavy taxation in order to provide everything for the lower economic classes is an out-dated, 20th century, communist dream. It doesn't work in this 21st century globalist economy, as the peole of Venezuela are finding out. Yes, some taxation for a safety net, but thinking that a government can confiscate its way into utopia is failed, marxist ideology.

 

Since you mentioned Venezuela and what it demonstrates about the failures of Socialism/Communism...

 

This week, there was an article about a test program in Venezuela.  The government distributed Rabbits to people. The idea was that the Rabbits would grow, and that the people could then slaughter the Rabbits, and have 2 1/2 pounds (or kilos?) of meat to eat.  The majority of the people turned their Rabbits into Pets.  The Venezuelan government is trying to get them to eat their Rabbits.

 

There are approximately 30,000 Venezuelans who live near the Colombian border who cross into Colombia each day. They buy food. They buy medicine. They buy toilet paper. Some of them attend school or get medical care here.  A lot of them are coming illegally into Colombia and are here permanently. Our government is trying to help them.

[Lanny]

I walked into a busy Mc Donalds the other day.  The lady sweeping the floor looked up and said "Welcome to McDonalds, would you like me to show you how to use our new kiosk to order?"  They had one register, and three order kiosks where the customer places their own order and pays. 

 

We  live in South America and we rarely eat out. Last year, in the restaurant of the Visitors Center in Kennedy Space Center, that was our first experience ordering and paying that way.  We got a lot of very wholesome food at low cost.  It reduces the number of order takers/cashiers they need for the people who do not use the Kiosk or do not have a Credit or Debit card to pay at the Kiosk..

 

I saw something on TV months ago, an executive of a fast food chain. He explained how they were looking at Robots to replace some of their workers.  The more their hourly cost for labor increases, the more economical and profitable it is for them to consider replacing humans with robots.  

 

They study the market reality of what customers are willing/able to pay for their food and there is a price point they must meet and if they are above that, the customers will go to another restaurant.  

[Ottakee]

I never said this would be easy and there are no easy answers.

 

I just know I have a double major with a 5 year college degree and make $11-12.50/hour with no benefits teaching severely impaired students. This is not an "easy" job or a "low skill" job.

 

I could see a huge reduction in the need for social services if families could earn enough to support themselves. It might also allow many parents to choose to have only one parent working and the other one home with the kids....therefore reducing the number of day care needs.

[Bootsie]

 

I could see a huge reduction in the need for social services if families could earn enough to support themselves. It might also allow many parents to choose to have only one parent working and the other one home with the kids....therefore reducing the number of day care needs.

 

The problem is, requiring any employer to pay at least $24 an hour will not guarantee that a family can earn enough to support themselves.  It will cause some people to lose their jobs and make $0 to support their families. 

[Lanny]

 

We want companies to be altruistic and just absorb a higher minimum wage to make less profit but many companies just won't do that in a free market.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Large corporations cannot do that. Their Fiduciary responsibility is to the Stockholders. Their legal goal is to make as much of a profit as is possible.  If they did not do that, the Stockholders would sue the Board of Directors.

 

The majority of jobs in the USA are created by Small Businesses. So if you (or I) opened a store to sell something, for example, we are at very high risk of failing, especially the first year and the first 5 years, and we need to keep our Overhead as low as is possible, and try to make a profit. We (the owners) would be working 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, trying to make it go. Our employees, if we had them, would be working 8 hours a day and might earn more than we do.

[mamajag]

Serious question, no snark intended~

 

Do you really think the majority of people who earn low wages are thinking that an increase in income will give them time to read or educate themselves? 

 

When I was teaching and had conversations with students about why they wanted to earn more money the majority responded with the desire for new cars, better clothes, ability to travel, more free time. I can only recall a handful of students who cited better education, reading, pursuing arts, or having time to volunteer as the reason for wanting to earn more money. Granted this was at a CC in a low income area so the answers may have been skewed by the population base but isn't that the population who would most benefit from an increased minimum wage?

 

As a pp stated, this is a complicated issue and one I don't think can be answered easily. People's goals, dreams, desires, abilities, motivations, etc are too varied.

Honestly, that's a bit cold. If you've been poor and lived terrified that your beater car was going to break down and you were going to lose your job because of it, you'd understand why they desire reliable transportation. If you've ever gone to an interview and been underdressed in your best clothes, you'd know why they want the proper wardrobe. If you've worked multiple jobs, some down time would be nice. When I was broke I didn't dream of being able to sit on my behind and read. I wanted to survive without being stressed to the nines about the basics. Being able to sit on my behind and read was a fairy tale. I just wanted reliable transportation and a wardrobe that could get me hired or promoted. It's easy to forget or judge those things when you've never been there.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Some people would answer yes. I remember reading a story about a bookstore owner who had to close after a minimum wage hike in his city, and multiple people were fine with that because "If he can't provide a living wage to all employees, he shouldn't even be in business." 

 

This is really awful.

 

I remember a similar story about when health care reform was proposed back about 20 years ago or so.

It was predicted that the employer mandate would tank a lot of small businesses, and the person in charge said something along the lines of, "I can't be responsible for all those undercapitalized small businesses failing."  Sickening.

[bookbard]

Wow, I'm surprised by most people's responses. Other western countries seem to manage paying people a living wage. Why is the US so different? 

 

The whole automation thing isn't going to be prevented by lowering the minimum wage. That's going to come anyway - hence the UBI discussion. 

[Bootsie]

Wow, I'm surprised by most people's responses. Other western countries seem to manage paying people a living wage. Why is the US so different? 

 

The whole automation thing isn't going to be prevented by lowering the minimum wage. That's going to come anyway - hence the UBI discussion. 

Are there any examples of countries with a government mandated living wage?  I am unaware of any.

[bookbard]

Are there any examples of countries with a government mandated living wage?  I am unaware of any.

 

 

 

What do you mean? Surely most western countries have a minimum award wage? We certainly do in Australia. It's $18 an hour. 

[Bootsie]

 

 

What do you mean? Surely most western countries have a minimum award wage? We certainly do in Australia. It's $18 an hour. 

 

Switzerland has no minimum wage.  Many countries with a minimum wage have special wages for apprentices; some have government subsidies to bring wages up instead of having the burden fall entirely on the employer.  Even when a country has a minimum wage, it is not necessarily at a level that would be considered a living wage.

[Bootsie]

 

 

What do you mean? Surely most western countries have a minimum award wage? We certainly do in Australia. It's $18 an hour. 

 

Is the $18 an hour minimum wage in Australia in Australian dollars or US dollars?  

 

The Australian minimum wage has historically been the highest minimum wage in the world.  Yet It is still significantly lower than the $24 per hour living wage the OP suggested (and I think the cost of living in Australia tends to be high).

[nixpix5]

I have lived in an economy where a bare minimum amount of work gave people an income similar to that of hard working highly trained professionals and where, in some cases, the supervisor made less than the workers (who then made fun of their supervisor for being so dumb as to get more education).

What happened was completely predictable: enough people chose not to work hard because there was no incentive to do so, productivity decreased, the economy was dysfunctional. This ultimately led to a collapse of the system.

Anybody who proposes a universal basic income or a high minimum wage needs to study thoroughly the economic system in the former socialist countries and explain how their measures would not cause the same dysfunctional trends.

 

Plus, with today's technology, a high minimum wage will make it more economical to have tasks done by machines - especially menial tasks that require no advanced training. It will make precisely those jobs go away who are now paid minimum wage.

Thank you for saying this. Sometimes people that have experienced it first hand do not feel comfortable speaking up. My friend who immigrated here says exactly the same thing.

[Arcadia]

Is the $18 an hour minimum wage in Australia in Australian dollars or US dollars?

 

The Australian minimum wage has historically been the highest minimum wage in the world. Yet It is still significantly lower than the $24 per hour living wage the OP suggested (and I think the cost of living in Australia tends to be high).

It is in Australian dollars.

“The national minimum wage is currently $18.29 per hour or $694.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).†https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages

 

My niece is in Sydney, my husband’s paternal and maternal aunts are in Sydney and Melbourne and Perth. Minimum wage is not enough to be a living wage unless a single person is just starting out and staying with parents/relatives rent free.

 

My former Australian colleagues stayed in the outskirts of Sydney and commute to the Sydney office because of cost of housing. That is for dual income, two to three kids and both earning higher than minimum wage on a typical office hours schedule. Their house is modest in size too.

[Bootsie]

It is in Australian dollars.

“The national minimum wage is currently $18.29 per hour or $694.90 per 38 hour week (before tax).†https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages

 

My niece is in Sydney, my husband’s paternal and maternal aunts are in Sydney and Melbourne and Perth. Minimum wage is not enough to be a living wage unless a single person is just starting out and staying with parents/relatives rent free.

 

My former Australian colleagues stayed in the outskirts of Sydney and commute to the Sydney office because of cost of housing. That is for dual income, two to three kids and both earning higher than minimum wage on a typical office hours schedule. Their house is modest in size too.

So, that is equivalent to about $14.30 in U.S. dollars

[Arcadia]

Sometimes people that have experienced it first hand do not feel comfortable speaking up. My friend who immigrated here says exactly the same thing.

Not about living wage but about overtime pay. When overtime pay was removed for engineers and only given for engineering technicians and below ranked, the technicians ended up earning more than the engineer who had to be on-site due to lab safety regulations. None of the engineers wanted to be on-site during overtime hours. One of the engineers even asked if he can be demoted to engineering technician because he needed the overtime money. My ex-bosses got around that HR policy by paying overtime as performance bonuses.

 

My friends from China would tell you it’s dumb to work harder for the same wage. Just go earn some under table money after work hours instead. My brother’s wife is from China. She earned less than US$300 per month in her factory job and it was a comfortable income in her village. My brother collects more than US$300/month by renting out their spare bedroom to two single people so there was no need for his wife to work other than to help fund retirement savings.

[bookbard]

Many countries with a minimum wage have special wages for apprentices; some have government subsidies to bring wages up instead of having the burden fall entirely on the employer.  Even when a country has a minimum wage, it is not necessarily at a level that would be considered a living wage.

 

 

 

You're right, all that is true. If you're raising a family, even if you're on a middle-to-high income, you get a payment for each child. If one parent is on a low wage, the other parent is eligible for a parenting payment to care for their children at home until they're age 6. So the minimum wage alone wouldn't be enough without wider changes.

 

It is true that it's expensive with housing in Sydney - but that's a separate issue. 

[bookbard]

If the government just brought it a law "from today, you have to pay $15 an hour instead of $2" or whatever - yes, I don't see how that would work. But surely the government subsidising businesses by giving welfare to people who are working for companies making enormous amounts of money makes no sense. Surely it makes more sense for these companies to pay their workers more and therefore the workers have more money to spend, and pay more tax, and the government doesn't have to pay out welfare? 

 

Companies aren't doing this voluntarily, which is why the government has to mandate a decent wage, increasing slowly over a few years, so that they can build it into their business models. 

 

Honestly though - I feel like I should never reply in these type of threads. Surely everyone wants a world where you can live decently? I'm no economist to be able to map out exactly how the system should change, and I doubt most of us are. 

 

 

[Lanny]

When someone in the USA is working on a W-2 (as an employee), on an hourly basis, the actual cost to the employer is much higher than the direct hourly rate paid to an employee. So, when I worked as a Contractor, whatever hourly rate I received from the "job shop" I worked for on that  assignment, they had to "mark up" the rate I got from them, I believe at that time they needed approximately 35% more, to pay for what they had to pay (Social Security, Workman's Compensation insurance, some Holidays, etc.). A rough example: If I was receiving $50 per hour, they would need to bill the client corporation approximately $67.50 an hour for each hour I worked, and with that differential, hopefully the job shop would make a small profit. I don't have a calculator handy, but hopefully I did that multiplication in my head correctly...   If  I had worked as a "Direct" (permanent) employee the costs to my employer would have been far higher, for vacation days,  possibly Sick leave days, Holidays, and possibly Pension.  In the case of the job shops, they frequently need to wait 60 or 90 days for the client corporation to pay them, but they must pay the people who are working for them (like me) every week, on time, or their people will have the client corporation  switch them to another job shop.  

 

ETA: Another cost to the employer, if provided, is for Medical Insurance, Dental Insurance, etc.  Frequently those costs are shared with the employee, but it isn't free to the employer.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Lanny

[Ali in OR]

I think a better solution to making life more livable would be to have universal health care and more government support for childcare and education. I just finished reading The Nordic Theory of Everything by Anu Partanen who compares her native Finland to the U.S. where she now lives with her American husband. Between what employers and employees pay for healthcare now, we could almost pay for healthcare for everyone with a single-payer system. Some estimate that with the reduced prices a single-payer can negotiate we could pay for everyone. You can make a little less money when you don't have to pay huge healthcare premiums or hospital bills. Partanen explains that freelancing for work is much more popular in Finland but people here can't do that because of the health insurance issue. Ditto working for small businesses or being an entrepeneur (sorry-don't know how to spell that). Other countries do this. It's not an impossible dream.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do not understand this. There is no fixed "basket of jobs" available - it is constantly evolving what jobs exist and need to be done, how many people are required to achieve a certain result, and which jobs can economically be performed by people rather than machines.

 

The fact that in the past fast food was served or groceries were sold to customers by humans does not mean it will stay like this. We don't spin by hand anymore, and those jobs went away. In turn, there are jobs in existence nowadays that did not exist and could not even be imagined when I was a child.

 

The labor market is relatively fixed in the short term.  The point being that there is always a segment of the economy that is low skill/unskilled jobs.

[Arcadia]

Partanen explains that freelancing for work is much more popular in Finland but people here can't do that because of the health insurance issue. Ditto working for small businesses or being an entrepeneur (sorry-don't know how to spell that). Other countries do this. It's not an impossible dream.

The tax code is also more complicated here in the states. My husband was self-employed in our home country for two years. Filing his business tax and personal tax was very simple. Insurance isn’t tied to employment but is govt subsidized instead. Well child checkups for school age kids are done in school during school time. I was screened for scoliosis (due to a curved spine) at 6th grade for free as part of well child checkup for every 6th grader. Vaccinations at school are free, the nurses from ministry of health just visit every school in turn to do the vaccinations. There are school dentists too. Vision check is done in school during school time by the mobile healthcare team. Parents can opt out and bring their kids to private clinics.

 

9% of every pay check is automatically deducted for the medisave account which could be used to pay the annual premiums for the govt subsidized insurance plan as well as some out of pocket expenses. Also it is a free market since people can go to any private optician, dentist or doctor if they don’t mind paying more, or go to the public hospital, optician, dentist, doctors, specialist if they want to pay less. My home country is tiny though so it is easier to manage public healthcare for a population of less than 7 million.

 

It is just like education, it is easier to dole out a minimum standard of education in a tiny nation than in a populous state like California

Edited September 30, 2017 by Arcadia

[regentrude]

ETA: Another cost to the employer, if provided, is for Medical Insurance, Dental Insurance, etc.  Frequently those costs are shared with the employee, but it isn't free to the employer.

 

Most minimum work jobs do not provide benefits.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Surely everyone wants a world where you can live decently? I'm no economist to be able to map out exactly how the system should change, and I doubt most of us are.

Of course we want that. It being possible, considering the nature of people, seems unlikely.

 

I have recently been wondering if it is possible for everyone who works hard to be paid well. In order for many employees to be paid more (in industries with low profit margins), revenue needs be increased, which means customers pay more, which decreases their buying power.

 

If we level wages (which nobody has suggested) to pay everyone the same, then wouldn't it end up like subsistence cultures where everybody has to do things themselves because it costs too much to hire anyone for anything?

Edited September 30, 2017 by HoppyTheToad

[Ottakee]

Something mentioned earlier is that not all jobs SHOULD be supporting a family.

I am the OP and I agree. I was more referring to factory jobs....those that are 40-60+ hours a week but only pay $10/hour. Teachers assistants often make only $10-12/hour even with a college degree. Day care workers, caring for our next generation, often make not much above minimum wage even for full time work. Someone above said as a 911 disbatcher they made less than $14/ hour and that is a high stress job that involves giving life saving advice.

[Janeway]

I think there is an overall systemic problems. There are plenty of jobs that should pay what minimum wage is. But then there are many other jobs that simply do not pay what they should and then the top brass in those companies are multi-millionaires. I get that some people earned the money to be uber wealthy and some people are too lazy to wipe their own butts. 

 

I think people should have the right to work harder and then have a higher income. But I also think that the income inequality and high costs of living have been getting so bad that life is becoming not as sustainable in this country.

 

But the whole thing is such a big and complex problem that I have no solutions. I do know that raising minimum wage is not really the answer. It will just remove the possibility of jobs for teens. 

[Crimson Wife]

We don't have a problem with wages being too low. We have a problem with the cost of living being too high.

 

My almost 15 y.o. just got a PT job at the library that will mostly entail re-shelving books and locating items that patrons have placed on "hold". She is getting paid minimum wage of $10-something/hour. She's not trying to support anyone, not even herself on it. It's going for supplemental things like replacing her old-but-functional MacBook. She does not need to earn a "living wage" nor does she have the skills or experience at this stage in her life to warrant one.

 

If adults working FT are having difficulty affording basics like housing, healthcare, childcare, etc. then we need to address those costs directly rather than trying to mandate dramatically higher across-the-board wage hikes.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't know what the answer is, other than to control COL in some way.  Rent controls would be nice. Affordable housing would help. 

 

Changing zoning laws and providing tax incentives to builders of multi-family townhome, condo, & apartment complexes over McMansions would go a long way towards increasing the supply of affordable housing. My hometown in New England has had 2 acre minimum zoning for decades and the median home price there is $644k. So a 2 acre lot that could house dozens of middle-class families in a condo  or apartment complex instead houses a single wealthy family in a McMansion. :thumbdown:

 

[Arcadia]

Changing zoning laws and providing tax incentives to builders of multi-family townhome, condo, & apartment complexes over McMansions would go a long way towards increasing the supply of affordable housing.

The service apartments that has pop up in my area has already gotten neighbors angry about overcrowded schools being even more overcrowded. The Agnew school site has already been a done deal for quite some time but construction hasn’t started yet. My nearest elementary school has already lost the outdoor basketball courts space to portable classrooms.

 

A few years ago Cupertino residents didn’t want more condos and I can’t really blame them. It’s not just about keeping property prices high but also about keeping schools from being overrun by portables for classrooms.

[Bootsie]

 

Companies aren't doing this voluntarily, which is why the government has to mandate a decent wage, increasing slowly over a few years, so that they can build it into their business models. 

 

Honestly though - I feel like I should never reply in these type of threads. Surely everyone wants a world where you can live decently? I'm no economist to be able to map out exactly how the system should change, and I doubt most of us are. 

I am an economist and have spent many hours studying labor economics.  

 

Business building increasing wages into their business models looks like this:  If I have to pay a worker $15 an hour to vacuum, I will buy a robot to vacuum.  The robot doesn't ask for sick leave, doesn't strike, and doesn't take vacation.  I don't have to pay payroll taxes on the robot.  If I have to pay a worker $20 an hour to package my goods, I will buy a machine to package my goods.  Businesses use inputs in relation to how valuable that input is (which is measured by how productive that input is and how much that production can be sold for).  Just like if gasoline price tripled, the next time the business purchased a vehicle, it would purchase one with a diesel engine, as the price of labor increases a business substitutes away from labor.  

 

The impact gets larger as it goes through the production chain.  If I am a retail store, I might replace some of my cashiers with self-service kiosks.  Also , if there are two shirts that the customer sees as identical the customer won't pay three times as much if I purchase the shirt from Supplier A than if I purchase it from Supplier B.  So, I need to purchase the shirt from the cheaper supplier.  The cheaper supplier will be the one who uses more technology and less labor.  So, the Supplier who is paying workers $24 an hour to sew shirts is going to go out of business and the supplier who is using robots to make shirts will stay in business.  

 

From an economics perspective, wages will increase when either workers are more productive and/or the value of their output is higher (which means that customers are willing to pay more for their output).  

[bookbard]

 If I have to pay a worker $15 an hour to vacuum, I will buy a robot to vacuum. 

 

 

The robots are going to come no matter the outcome of the minimum wage discussion. They'll be cheaper long-term - no sick leave, for example. This whole thread fits in with the recent UBI thread quite well, I think. Minimum wage jobs may well disappear altogether - so what happens then?

 

I thought this was an interesting article: 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/education-and-economic-mobility/541041/

 

"He concludes that factors like higher minimum wages, the presence and strength of labor unions, and clear career pathways within local industries are likely to play more important roles in facilitating a poor child’s ability to rise up the economic ladder when they reach adulthood."

 

 

[Rosie_0801]

The impact gets larger as it goes through the production chain.  If I am a retail store, I might replace some of my cashiers with self-service kiosks.  Also , if there are two shirts that the customer sees as identical the customer won't pay three times as much if I purchase the shirt from Supplier A than if I purchase it from Supplier B.  So, I need to purchase the shirt from the cheaper supplier.  The cheaper supplier will be the one who uses more technology and less labor.  So, the Supplier who is paying workers $24 an hour to sew shirts is going to go out of business and the supplier who is using robots to make shirts will stay in business.  

 

It's pretty interesting to watch the small subcultures where that is not true, or, at least, where they haven't yet. :P

 

I've got a mate who can sell locally for $x, can sell the same thing to a middleman in Sydney for $3x, who then marks it up by 100%. 

[Guest]

The service apartments that has pop up in my area has already gotten neighbors angry about overcrowded schools being even more overcrowded. The Agnew school site has already been a done deal for quite some time but construction hasn’t started yet. My nearest elementary school has already lost the outdoor basketball courts space to portable classrooms.

 

A few years ago Cupertino residents didn’t want more condos and I can’t really blame them. It’s not just about keeping property prices high but also about keeping schools from being overrun by portables for classrooms.

Its about tax structure and water here, in a rural area. Simply not enough water to go smaller than three acres in lot size for a single family residence. In town, the illegal one family per bedroom,basement, garage, and driveway pod has run the wells dry. There is no commercial development possible as fire code must be met. Right now, the McKinney Vento Act is taking the pressure off the schools, so they ship students out rather than water in. At a certain point, schools in dry town will reach capacity amd excess students will be bussed to a town with enough water.

Taxes on dense housing aren't enough to pay for services. Without 'the rich', its expected quality of life would go way down, as it did last time dense housing was approved. The builder profits enormously, but he doesn't pay for expansion of water district, school district, or police and fire nor do the taxes. Instant population explosions don't work...the 9/11 wave showed us.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Honestly, that's a bit cold. If you've been poor and lived terrified that your beater car was going to break down and you were going to lose your job because of it, you'd understand why they desire reliable transportation. If you've ever gone to an interview and been underdressed in your best clothes, you'd know why they want the proper wardrobe. If you've worked multiple jobs, some down time would be nice. When I was broke I didn't dream of being able to sit on my behind and read. I wanted to survive without being stressed to the nines about the basics. Being able to sit on my behind and read was a fairy tale. I just wanted reliable transportation and a wardrobe that could get me hired or promoted. It's easy to forget or judge those things when you've never been there.

 

I don't see how my answer was cold and I think you interpreted it incorrectly. I didn't say why they wanted the things they wanted. I simply said none have ever said they wanted time to read or start a business. I specifically stated that motivations, goals, etc varied per person and we need to be aware of that.

 

You also don't know anything about my history. I have never made anywhere near the $24 per hour benchmark in the OP and I spent the first 27 years of my life living below the poverty level; so, yes, I do know what it's like to have to worry about vehicles and clothing and the necessities. 

 

I've reread and reread what I wrote and I can't see anything that would make it look like I was anything but aware of the issues involved. I apologize if I'm missing something.

[ktgrok]

[quote name="happysmileylady" post="7808142" timestamp

I think people should be paid according to the skills of the job they do, not "living wage."

 

So who does those low skill jobs and how do they survive??? Someone has to mop the floors and stock shelves. They deserve to eat and have a roof over their heads and their employers should pay for that, not welfare. We shouldn't have to pay welfare to people working full time.

[ktgrok]

 

 

From an economics perspective, wages will increase when either workers are more productive and/or the value of their output is higher (which means that customers are willing to pay more for their output).

It was my understanding that productivity HAS gone up but instead of raising wages all over that has just increased pay at the upper levels. Hence the increasing pay gap between CEOs and their employees.

[Bootsie]

It was my understanding that productivity HAS gone up but instead of raising wages all over that has just increased pay at the upper levels. Hence the increasing pay gap between CEOs and their employees.

Labor productivity has not risen substantially, especially at the lower levels of the skill and wage distribution, and especially when controlling for productivity increases that have occurred because of machinery not labor.  A worker at McDonald's is not able to cook significantly more hamburgers an hour than a worker was five or ten years ago.  A janitor is not able to sweep significantly more square feet of flooring in an hour than he was 20 years ago.

[Bootsie]

So who does those low skill jobs and how do they survive??? Someone has to mop the floors and stock shelves. They deserve to eat and have a roof over their heads and their employers should pay for that, not welfare. We shouldn't have to pay welfare to people working full time.

If an employee can make one widget an hour and I can sell that widget for $10, why should I have to pay therm enough for food and a roof over their head if that is more than $10.  Then as an employer am I not paying welfare?

[Junie]

Teenagers.  Spouses of breadwinners who just want to earn a bit to contribute to their household.  Breadwinners who want to earn a little bit extra to surprise their spouse with a gift.  Retired folks who get enough from retirement and social security but are bored sitting around at home.

 

IOW...people who AREN'T working to survive.  People who need a job to pay their rent and groceries and such need something more than a quick and easy 20hr a week part time job.  The problem isn't the pay level of the job, the problem is using that job to pay for more than a little extra cash. 

 

:iagree: Exactly this.

[ktgrok]

Teenagers.  Spouses of breadwinners who just want to earn a bit to contribute to their household.  Breadwinners who want to earn a little bit extra to surprise their spouse with a gift.  Retired folks who get enough from retirement and social security but are bored sitting around at home.

 

IOW...people who AREN'T working to survive.  People who need a job to pay their rent and groceries and such need something more than a quick and easy 20hr a week part time job.  The problem isn't the pay level of the job, the problem is using that job to pay for more than a little extra cash. 

 

Teens are in school during the day, so that eliminates them from all daytime positions. Breadwinners have another job so can't do it full time, they are already at their daytime job. Retired folks most likely can't do anything physically difficult like ditch digging, etc. 

 

So..yeah. 

 

If you just want to earn a bit of fun money, the answer is to work part time, not to work full time for crap pay. 

[ktgrok]

If an employee can make one widget an hour and I can sell that widget for $10, why should I have to pay therm enough for food and a roof over their head if that is more than $10.  Then as an employer am I not paying welfare?

 

You need to sell your widget for more, or figure something out. I shouldn't be paying your employees salary, which I am by paying them food stamps. 

[Junie]

Teens are in school during the day, so that eliminates them from all daytime positions. Breadwinners have another job so can't do it full time, they are already at their daytime job. Retired folks most likely can't do anything physically difficult like ditch digging, etc. 

 

So..yeah. 

 

If you just want to earn a bit of fun money, the answer is to work part time, not to work full time for crap pay. 

 

College students are also teens and many are available during the day.  There are a lot of moms who have all their kids in school who would like to make some extra $$.  And I think that most of these jobs are part time, anyway.

 

Maybe super physical jobs such as ditch digging should pay more.  To me that takes a higher skill set then folding clothes at a department store.

 

Improving wages for the work force it not a one-size-fits-all proposition.  Yes, there are too many jobs stuck near minimum wage, but that does not mean that working in fast food or the mall or w/e needs to be able to support a family of four.

[nixpix5]

You need to sell your widget for more, or figure something out. I shouldn't be paying your employees salary, which I am by paying them food stamps.

I agree with you, but this is the catch 22. To pay people more you sell you items for more. If your product isn't worth more you go out of business or automate. Either way people lose jobs. If your item does sell at a higher rate, COL slowly increases to a point that living wage is no longer a living wage.

 

I do believe people need to be able to have affordable housing, food, utilities, medical and childcare. These things are absolutely necessary. Transportation is also an issue.

 

What I do see in my area is people who not only want the basics but also an iPhone, a mac, super fast wifi, cable, new wardrobes, every new toy for their kid, etc. I cannot tell you how many homes I went to for family counseling of people on assistance that lived way better than me. There kids would have 10+ gifts under the tree, nice electronics, always a pack of cigarettes, always able to go to the movies and so forth. One family flew to Disney World every year. It was sobering to do home visits. I often pulled into driveways next to nicer cars.

 

I am not saying everybody does this. Yes, many wages are just not livable and it isn't fair when people work hard. I am saying that sometimes what we think we need out of our wages are different than what other people think they need.

 

If we did move to something like UBI I would love to see it go towards housing. I think with cheaper housing that would free up more wages for other necessities. Better medical options obviously and I would love to see free childcare. Those are the areas I feel would be best served atm.

[bookbard]

I think people are basically saying capitalism doesn't work for everyone.

 

I agree. 

[ktgrok]

I agree with you, but this is the catch 22. To pay people more you sell you items for more. If your product isn't worth more you go out of business or automate. 

 

Or, because everyone now makes a living wage, more people can afford your widget, and can afford to pay more for it. 

[Crimson Wife]

The service apartments that has pop up in my area has already gotten neighbors angry about overcrowded schools being even more overcrowded. The Agnew school site has already been a done deal for quite some time but construction hasn’t started yet. My nearest elementary school has already lost the outdoor basketball courts space to portable classrooms.

 

A few years ago Cupertino residents didn’t want more condos and I can’t really blame them. It’s not just about keeping property prices high but also about keeping schools from being overrun by portables for classrooms.

 

So build more schools. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards that than subsidizing sports complexes like Levi's Stadium. Santa Clara is paying something like $114 MILLION for that. :cursing:

[Bootsie]

You need to sell your widget for more, or figure something out. I shouldn't be paying your employees salary, which I am by paying them food stamps. 

What happens is the employer figures out to close the business or use a robot instead of the employee--so you still pay for food stamps.  

[Bootsie]

Or, because everyone now makes a living wage, more people can afford your widget, and can afford to pay more for it. 

There are a lot of smart businesspeople out there--if it were possible to pay their workers more and then have the people pay more, and then the business make more money they would do that.

[Barb_]

Here's a thought experiment.

 

What about a 2-tier system? Maybe $10/hr federal minimum for high school students working under 30 hours a week? Full time college students with no dependents working fewer than 30 could fall under the same umbrella. Part time college students working more than 30 hours would fall under the adult living-wage category.

 

Adults over 18 and not in school would fall under the living wage catagory regardless of part or full time work, to discourage employers from hiring multiple lower-paid part timers.

 

The law of unintended consequences being as it is, what am I missing? What's wrong with this plan?

Edited October 1, 2017 by Barb_

[Bootsie]

Here's a thought experiment.

 

What about a 2-tier system? Maybe $10/hr federal minimum for high school students working under 30 hours a week? Full time college students with no dependents working fewer than 30 could fall under the same umbrella. Part time college students working more than 30 hours would fall under the adult living-wage category.

 

Adults over 18 and not in school would fall under the living wage catagory regardless of part or full time work, to discourage employers from hiring multiple lower-paid part timers.

 

The law of unintended consequences being as it is, what am I missing? What's wrong with this plan?

How do I verify whether an employee is in school or not?  What counts as college?  Does this apply only during the semester?  What about summer?  Christmas holidays?  Spring break?  What aboud college students who work more than 30 hours?  What about part-time college students working less than 30 hours?  Does this apply only to undergraduate students?  What about graduate?  What happens if a worker drops all of his classes while working for an employer?

 

What about college students with dependents?

 

Unemployment among 19-23 year olds who are not attending college would increase.  If I am an accounting firm, why would I pay a 19 year old with no experience and no college classes more than I would pay a college student with 3 1/2 years of college and three years working in my firm during tax season?