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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.

So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.

That is the crux of the problem... we have people working minimum wage jobs, because that is all they can get for whatever reason, and they want more then minimum pay.

its the minimum for a reason, IE its skilless/educationless work.

If these people actually had more then minimum skills, they could find jobs that paid more then min wage.

SImply raising the min wage, without raising the min skillset, is not sustainable, nor benificial for society as a whole.

Instead of guaranteeing people a "living" wage no matter what skilless work they do, people should be guaranteed training in usefull skills before they leave the public education system.

The simple fact that you can graduate high school, and never have had an opportunity to learn an employable skill, is the real problem, not that people are not getting paid enough for not being skilled enough.



TLDR:


If you have the skills, you can pay the bills

Fast Food employee is hitting on par with a non specialized SurgTech in pay

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sauce, there are more people than just teenagers and college kids making minimum wage.

So? That wasn't its purpose.
If you make it $15 an hour they won't be employed either.

That is the crux of the problem... we have people working minimum wage jobs, because that is all they can get for whatever reason,

Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.

 Easy E wrote:

Yes, that is the crux of the problem. The question is what is the cause of it? the "For whatever reason" is pretty important as that leads to different solutions.

Quite a few of the adults I've seen working these kinds of job could be placed squarely in the "I made poor life choices" category. And by that, I mean some of these folks are probably the same age as me, but look 40 due to being on Meth or other hard drugs.

There are also quite a few that are there due to arriving in the US fairly recently (whether it was legally or illegally is fairly irrelevant here).

And I'd think that the final "category" of people in these jobs are the ones who idolize "The Dude" and are as much of slackers as they can possibly be


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there are certainly more people out there who dont fit one of those three categories, but those kinda seem to be the big 3.

Don't diss the Dude, MAN!


Now pass me a White Russian.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And I'd think that the final "category" of people in these jobs are the ones who idolize "The Dude" and are as much of slackers as they can possibly be

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Want lobster with that drink Frazz? Your Escalade washed to?

Pfft, Escalades are not real cars

Tell that to de Dude

mmmm dude referances....


almost as good as guy on the couch references.

If you dont know who guy on the couch is, google it and watch half baked... your welcome.


OT, yeah, the top 3 "whatever reason" for people past colledge age for working min wage jobs is generally poor life choices, recent immigrant, or slackers... not to say there isnt the occasional person who is grossly overqualified for that position who is forced to work there.

But that isnt a min wage problem, thats a lack of "career" level jobs problem.

People really cannot argue that most older people who work at min wage are there despite their good choices and high levels of skill.

 easysauce wrote:

for instance, a handicapped friend of mine used to get paid 4$/hr to fold napkins and do table set ups, that was the most the employer could pay him, and he was happy to work for it. Min wage was increased, making it illegal to pay him 4/hr, and his employer couldnt afford to keep him at the higher rate. ended up being a lose lose for them both.

Yeah, unless tips were shared that sounds incredibly exploitative.

 easysauce wrote:

People really cannot argue that most older people who work at min wage are there despite their good choices and high levels of skill.

And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.

 dogma wrote:

And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.

This all so absurd. You're making it sound like people are entitled to food and housing.

And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.

it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 dogma wrote:

And yet they do exactly that, implying that they have the ability to do so. Not that it matters, as why a person is working a minimum wage position is not relevant to the level at which the minimum wage should be set.

This all so absurd. You're making it sound like people are entitled to BE food and housing.

Soylent Green has clarified your typo

 Frazzled wrote:

it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.

What is the intent of a minimum wage if not to force employers to provide for a basic standard of living?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.

What is the intent of a minimum wage if not to force employers to provide for a basic standard of living?

The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.

The intent of a LIVING wage, would be to have a living wage.

There are minimum wage jobs, and living wage jobs.

Trying to turn the former into the later, simply by raising the per hour rate, while not changing the work to something worth the later, is a fantasy born by a total lack of understanding about how these things actually work.

Minimum wage work earns minimum wage pay, as it should.

People who actually perform living wage work, earn living wages.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

That's just so wrong its not even funny.

"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."

That penalizes success, which is just wrong.

If theres that much profit maybe they should be sharing that with the people who worked hard to make that profit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.

 easysauce wrote:

The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.

The intent of a LIVING wage, would be to have a living wage.

That's nonsense. Minimum wage laws exist in order to ensure that workers are paid enough to live, absent that they serve no purpose at all as there no reason to set a floor on wages for the sake of setting a floor on wages.

This is a circular discussion we've had multiple times.

A lot of it boils down to what "living wage" should include.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Most businesses (retail/fast food) that would be affected have minimum wage labor being a small portion of the expenses.

Personally instead of increasing the minimum wage, I`d be in favor of capping executive salary at a multiple (say 50 or 100) times the wages of the lowest paid worker. Tie in profit in a similar way. (100% taxation on any profit exceeding a level set by the lowest paid worker)

That's just so wrong its not even funny.

"Yeah, I know you had a really good year. Now we'll just take all that excess profit you got there, don't worry we're the Government. We know whats best."

That penalizes success, which is just wrong.

If theres that much profit maybe they should be sharing that with the people who worked hard to make that profit?

Depends on how you view what the root cause of that profit is.

All the parts of the machine are necessary for it to function, but they don't all determine what the success of it is.

The grunts working on the assembly line at Ford are not the root cause of Ford's profitability. They do not design a successful vehicle, they do not make the business decision to target a specific market, they do not arrange the cost management to ensure a profit is made. They get told to do X, Y, and Z to make the car. And they will do it successfully, but ultimately it will not effect how well the car sells or even if its a good design(the things that really determine if a car sells)

The only real effect they have is on the proper assembly of the vehicle.

The decisions which result in profitability belong to the people in charge. And thus that is where the rewards tend to go.

 skyth wrote:

The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.

Ehhh?

Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.

 cincydooley wrote:

 skyth wrote:

The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.

Ehhh?

Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.

Yeah, hard labor tends to pay pretty well. Some of it pays very very well.

The idea is if a 'high schooler' is making a living wage which an adult needs to live, then the government confiscates a large portion of that money back at tax time to functionally give the high schooler dependent a functionally smaller income than an adult earning a living wage.

So there is (supposed to be) no reason to pay the children or dependents less wage because it is handled via deductions, AMT and other tax code equalizers.

Now is that effective? no clue... but it really isn't a 14 year old saying 'schweeeeet! 12.75$ an hour! more comics and bubblegum!' because they probably lose 30% of that to taxes where a working poor could have almost none taken out at taxes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 skyth wrote:

The point of the minimum wage rate when it was implemented WAS to create a living wage. Someone shouldnt have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. Especially how physically demanding most minimum wage jobs are.

Ehhh?

Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.

Yeah, hard labor tends to pay pretty well. Some of it pays very very well.

yeah... hard labour pays a living wage in almost all cases... minimum wage is generally just for jobs where any warm body, not even a fit one, will do.

Hence minimum wages for minimum work.

Yup, being a register goon at Walmart or Micky Ds is an utter crap job, and expecting any more of the pay is delusional at best.

 cincydooley wrote:

Physically demanding jobs are rarely minimum wage jobs by virtue of them being physically demanding. There's a reason the starting wage of a dockworker at FedEx is more than a register jockey at McDonalds.

I worked for minimum wage unloading trucks at a book processing warehouse, so did several of my friends. And I know plenty of guys that work in warehouses doing the same work, for the same pay.

FedEx and UPS are the exceptions, not the rule.

 easysauce wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.

What is the intent of a minimum wage if not to force employers to provide for a basic standard of living?

The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.

I know a guy who has some insight into what the actual intent was.

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you – using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.”

Please, tell me more about what he actually meant.

 Ouze wrote:

That guy? Pffff! When presidents have ideas that aren't rubbish, people like them and elect them twice. He got elected a total number of times other than two. Clearly not being elected twice shows that his ideas were rubbish and nobody liked them.

nkelsch wrote:

Now is that effective? no clue... but it really isn't a 14 year old saying 'schweeeeet! 12.75$ an hour! more comics and bubblegum!' because they probably lose 30% of that to taxes where a working poor could have almost none taken out at taxes.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is a factor as well, especially given state distinctions regarding whether or not a work permit is required.

 Ouze wrote:

Spoiler:

 easysauce wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

it is indeed, as it hinge upon the intent fo the law in the first place.

What is the intent of a minimum wage if not to force employers to provide for a basic standard of living?

The intent of MINIMUM wage is to provide a bare minimum wage.

I know a guy who has some insight into what the actual intent was.

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you – using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.”

Please, tell me more about what he actually meant.

 easysauce wrote:
I wont argue that is what HIS intent WAS.

Because its totally irrelevant to what OUR intent is NOW.

Remember you said this the next time we have a 2nd amendment argument.