Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/05/news/san-francisco-increased-minimum-wage/
well I guess its time to see it unfold

Good for them.

Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.

Still not enough to survive on there if you want to live indoors

Prestor Jon wrote:
Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.

of course it won't go into anarchy, the Giants won. We are safe for another year.

Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.

Well, they can have their $15 minimum wage and their $4200 a month rent.

You couldn't convince me to live there for anything.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.

Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.

The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.

They should raise it to $30. Won't someone think of the children?

Prestor Jon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.

Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.

The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.

1. If you knew anyone living off minimum wage in a major city youd probably change your mind. Even rent controlled housing is hard to make work for the working poor in NYC.

2. Inflation is nowhere near that high.

So it's rising from its current levels by just over $4 so that it reaches $15 by 2018?

I guess that if they can justify it then why not?

I wonder if employers will raise prices significantly or take a slight hit in profits...

EDIT

Get some details in the OP, you feth!

Seriously though, details do help.

Title updated so as to make more sense...

And I'll echo cincy and say - no way would I want to live there.

Which works out well, because no way could I afford to live there!

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.

People work in sweat shops in China for bugger all, simply because employers can find desperate people to work for almost nothing, it's one step up from starving, what else can they do? That you can always find someone, somewhere prepared to take very little to do a job doesn't justify taking advantage of them to only pay tiny wages, and later blame them for lacking marketable skills. Any unskilled work is likely to have more applicants than employment positions, so companies can always pick those prepared to accept the least money. The same is true in western countries although not to such extremes as the far east, but employers can easily find someone to take any low wage as an alternative to unemployment. Such people only achieve surviving on low wages by living in substandard accommodation with poor diet and unable to provide basics for their children and other dependents.

Your logic excuses exploitation rather than challenges the need for a minimum wage set in law.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Different areas of the country can sustain different levels of minimum wage. The minimum wage isn't a panacea for economic problems and doesn't guarantee growth. San Francisco probably won't descend into banruptcy, anarchy and violence because of this but I don't think anybody is anticipating a boom either. Having the govt arbitrarily set a value on labor will always upset market forces.

of course it won't go into anarchy, the Giants won. We are safe for another year.

Barry Zito was worth every penny!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Excellent. Realistically, the areas that need a minimum wage increase thd most are major urban centers, many of them arent livable on a minimum wage income.

Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.

The fact that SF isn't going to have $15/hr minimum wage until 2018 shows that they're not really concerned with the wage. Given inflation and cost of living increases earning $15/hr in 2018 isn't going to be appreciably different from earning $10.74/hr today.

1. If you knew anyone living off minimum wage in a major city youd probably change your mind. Even rent controlled housing is hard to make work for the working poor in NYC.

2. Inflation is nowhere near that high.

If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.

I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Yet people are already living there and working minimum wage jobs. If companies couldn't find employees at the minimum wage rate they'd offer more money until they hit a level that allowed them to be properly staffed or they'd go out of business. Not everything needs to be codified into a law. If you're trying to support yourself or your family on a minimum wage job your problem is that you lack marketable skills not that the minimum wage is too low.

People work in sweat shops in China for bugger all, simply because employers can find desperate people to work for almost nothing, it's one step up from starving, what else can they do? That you can always find someone, somewhere prepared to take very little to do a job doesn't justify taking advantage of them to only pay tiny wages, and later blame them for lacking marketable skills. Any unskilled work is likely to have more applicants than employment positions, so companies can always pick those prepared to accept the least money. The same is true in western countries although not to such extremes as the far east, but employers can easily find someone to take any low wage as an alternative to unemployment. Such people only achieve surviving on low wages by living in substandard accommodation with poor diet and unable to provide basics for their children and other dependents.

Your logic excuses exploitation rather than challenges the need for a minimum wage set in law.

Or people could demand better wages and working conditions. Somehow the western world managed to go through extensive labor reforms long before we ever had minimum wage requirements. We've already seen a shift in factories to SE Asia instead of China specifically because China wanted an increase in wages and conditions to help increase domestic consumer spending and strenthen their economy. It takes two parties to agree to a labor contract.

$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

For San Fran?

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

 whembly wrote:

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

Which brings us full circle to how one defines a living wage.

If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.

I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.

Erroneous thinking, you're basically saying that a person doesn't have appropriate skills and/or knowledge, ergo they are unworthy of having an even halfway decent life. Further, 'nobody is forced to take a job they don't want' at gunpoint, however there is no real alternative in our society, except to die in poverty, so yes, as a matter of fact they are forced to take those jobs. You said it yourself, they lack the skills for something better, so what other option do they have?

As for why they are living in an area they can't afford, not much of an option there either. When you're living hand to mouth where do you have available to yourself the savings needed to relocate to a new area and start a new life?

Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

For San Fran?

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

Well, I don't really define min=living. I define it as, you shouldn't be payed too little. I'm from mid-state NY, so I know nothing of costs in cites.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

For San Fran?

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

Well, I don't really define min=living. I define it as, you shouldn't be payed too little. I'm from mid-state NY, so I know nothing of costs in cites.

Jeez... don't look in NY, NY then.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

For San Fran?

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

Well, I don't really define min=living. I define it as, you shouldn't be payed too little. I'm from mid-state NY, so I know nothing of costs in cites.

Jeez... don't look in NY, NY then.

Well I hate the city, I f look up at night, I should see stars, not helicopters.

I hate NYC too, NJ is pretty expensive, but nowhere near that bad (and IMO is worth every penny)

chaos0xomega wrote:

Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.

Do they all have "skills for something better?" Are you sure?

You get a degree in French History, it should be your understanding that the list of jobs for said major is going to be slim. That's on you, not the job market.

And, truth be told, tons of these graduates think they're "too good" for some of the jobs that are above minimum wage that they could get. Or they refuse to look for things outside of their degreed area. Thanks to Obamacare, I know for a fact that most schools in Ohio are having trouble finding substitute teachers. I asked my wife if they had lots of recent college grads subbing, and she said "we have very few." Why? Oh yes, because many think they're too good for the job.

With the holiday season approaching, there is NO REASON anyone with a college degree should be without work. When I worked at FedEx as my 2nd job when I was laid off in 08, we hired a ton of people around the holidays, at around $14 an hour no less. But not everyone is willing to work on a loading dock, for various reasons.

It's that "deserve" that you throw in there that's the problem. You deserve nothing. You don't "deserve" to be able to afford a place to live on your own. That's why in college people have roommates. You don't "deserve" to drive a new car. That's why the used car market exists.

This notion of "deserve" is a terrible thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
$10 made sense, because that was only something like a $2-3 raise, bit $15 seems a bit to much. Maybe that's just me.

For San Fran?

If the goal is that min wage = living wage... its not even close.

Indeed: $30 an hour.

chaos0xomega wrote:

If somebody can't find a job that pays better than minimum wage why are they living in an area they can't afford? Again, the problem in that scenario is that the person isn't equipped with valuable enough skills to demand a wage capable of supporting him/her and/or his/her family. That's not the fault of the their employer, their employer is just trying to offer a wage that people are willing to work for that can fit into their operating budget. Nobody is forced to take a job they don't want.

I included cost of living with inflation, which to my mind includes the taxes and healthcare costs being taken out of the paycheck in addition to the rising costs of food, shelter, fuel, etc.

Erroneous thinking, you're basically saying that a person doesn't have appropriate skills and/or knowledge, ergo they are unworthy of having an even halfway decent life. Further, 'nobody is forced to take a job they don't want' at gunpoint, however there is no real alternative in our society, except to die in poverty, so yes, as a matter of fact they are forced to take those jobs. You said it yourself, they lack the skills for something better, so what other option do they have?

As for why they are living in an area they can't afford, not much of an option there either. When you're living hand to mouth where do you have available to yourself the savings needed to relocate to a new area and start a new life?

Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.

If an adult person has lived for 18+ years and managed to not acquire a single useful job skills that qualifies them for a job that doesn't literally have a labor pool of millions to choose from then that's the individual's fault not their employer. Nobody just suddenly appears one day fully grown and on their own or with a family. If you want to have a family then it's your responsiblity to find a way to provide for them. If an adult has nothing to offer an employer except the most basic level of labor I don't see the need for the state to force his/her employer to pay an artificially high wage in order to placate the unskilled worker's desire to have cool stuff.

Raising minimum wage increases labor costs which only forces employers to cut hours, raise prices and reduce staff to maintain their budgets and margins. The people who are making $10.74/hr in SF today aren't any more valuable to their companies in 2018 but they'll be paid more so something has to give. The employees haven't improved themselves, they're still working the same jobs and now it will be harder for other people to get minimum wage jobs because employers will raise standards because the jobs are costing them more and there'll be lower turnover because the jobs pay more. If working minimum wage isn't enough to support your family the problem was that you started a family you couldn't afford not that your employer isn't paying you enough.

As for college students, it's already been said but I'll reiterate it, if you spend 4 years at a college racking up debt in exchange for a degree it is your personal responsibility to make sure you got your money's worth. If you college degree doesn't qualify you for a worthwhile job why did you get it? Whose fault is that? The job market? Nope, that's on you for choosing a major that doesn't provide you with any career options.

It surprises me that you think living in NJ is worth every penny. I grew up in an affluent suburb in NJ and most everybody I know has moved out to states with a lower cost of living. My wife and I each have a job that allows us to support a growing family, own nice property and have a nice life on a very blue collar income level that would barely allow us to keep the apt we rented 10 years ago in NJ. While Jersey isn't the cesspool some people like to mock it as the jacked up cost of living is too high to ever really be worth it IMO.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Beyond that, I will point out that more and more people with college educations are being forced to work minimum wage jobs because there aren't enough jobs to go around for everyone at the moment (and there never will be), do those people, who DO have skills for something better but cannot find such employment, also deserve to only scratch out a meager living? FYI, I happen to be recently unemployed with an Engineering degree, and even I'm having trouble finding a new job. This is true of more than a few people that I know, sadly enough.

This isn't really true either. A minimum wage job keeps people living below the poverty line, no? Well, just discussed yesterday, a report during my poli-sci class, that around 4% of people with a Bacelor's degree are living below the poverty line.

This isn't saying that college grads aren't overqualified or "underworked" for their jobs, just that there's far less people living in poverty/minimum wage type situations than you'd think.

But then, we can also talk about the jobs that Mike Rowe champions for. There's a MASSIVE shortage of welders around the country. The field of plumbing is actually fairly quickly diminishing, as many long time plumbers are retiring out, and not nearly enough people are coming into the profession to fill the void. It's just that, in the US especially, we've spent so much time and money indoctrinating kids to believe that College=Success, that many basically refuse to SEE other avenues of making money.

 Frazzled wrote:
They should raise it to $30. Won't someone think of the children?

As a closet hair metal fan, I can dig it.

Enjoy that $20 burger.

I ate a $16 burger at movie house grill Saturday watching Fury. It was absolutely awesome, with steakfries and a seamingly endless succession of Crowns and SoCos.

How do we expect decent hard-working people to exercise their right to bear arms if we don't provide a minimum wage high enough to buy firearms with?

Or, we could create a Federal program that hands-out guns to people in need. We could call it... the Army!