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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

This has zip to do with the Constitution, a totally different ball of wax.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

Huh. Must just be the trucking industry. I know when the fedex I worked at as my 2nd job when I was laid off closed, the other trucking companies in Cincy were super excited to hire folks that were laid off from fedex for as much (and more in some instances) as they were making at FedEx.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

And thats totally irrelevant, unless you also want to ban free speech on anything more advanced then hand crank copiers...


The fundamental human rights do not include "show up and get a house, clothes, food, tv, a car, the net, ect ect ect"

If the arguement was for actual needs like "food, water, shelter" then our minimum wage is already a living wage.

but its not, you are argueing for a "living in comfort" wage that goes well beyond basic needs and into the zone of how many luxuries it allows for.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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)

Actually "fit and finish", the things line workers directly affect, are fairly significant factors in how well a car sells.

More broadly, how well you treat your workers will certainly affect the quality, and therefore sales, of your product.

Grey Templar wrote:This has zip to do with the Constitution, a totally different ball of wax.

I'm arguing the principle that sometimes it's OK to try and changing the meaning of a framer of a law to adapt to our modern times, but other times it's a sacrosanct idea that is immutable.

easysauce wrote:If the arguement was for actual needs like "food, water, shelter" then our minimum wage is already a living wage.

but its not, you are argueing for a "living in comfort" wage that goes well beyond basic needs and into the zone of how many luxuries it allows for.

I haven't argued that at all in this thread. You're displacing. Feel free to hit "filter by user" to see. Mostly I'm just poking holes in other people's arguments.

That being said, I would argue that the minimum wage in most venues doesn't even allow the "food, water, shelter" you believe it should proscribe; in that additional government support is needed to fill that wage gap. It's corporate welfare, privatized profits and socialized costs.

 easysauce wrote:

If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.

Why legislatively establish a "living wage" if employers are not forced to comply?

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.

Why legislatively establish a "living wage" if employers are not forced to comply?

"This is a Living Wage paying company " Use it for the social stigma, it's like the Chic Fil A anti-gay thing

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.

Why legislatively establish a "living wage" if employers are not forced to comply?

You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.

 Grey Templar wrote:

You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.

And what criteria would you use that could extend across the full scope of jobs?

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.

And what criteria would you use that could extend across the full scope of jobs?

Don't know. Hence why the idea of having a living wage is silly. It would be impossible to implement because we can't just have a blanket definition of Living wage due to different costs of living, plus the inherent fact that not all jobs are worth what we might consider a living wage even if we managed to define it.

 dogma wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

If they want to establish a "living wage", go ahead, but dont call it a minimum wage, and dont disallow companies from payng "minimum" wage.

Why legislatively establish a "living wage" if employers are not forced to comply?

many reasons,

some of which are:

People can apply for only jobs that pay "living" wages if that is the wage they desire,



there can be criterea set for what skill level constitues the "minimum" level, and what makes for a "living" level. This is largly based on opinion, but can be broken down to somthing like "if an employee earns their employer 10$ an hour of net profit, the minimum they can be paid is 8$/hr"
There is the added social pressures for jobs to pay living wages, as well as the attraction for more talented workers, fringe benifits such as "eat at XXXX because we pay our workers a living wage, dont eat at YYYY because they dont".


This is also needed to not unemploy everyone who is at minimum work/wage jobs whos jobs would become unsustainable if the employer was forced to pay their employees more $ then they make for the company.

So this living wage. Is it just the man or woman making it? Both? Is living wage based of cost of living? Some area being much higher then other areas. I paid for college to become a certified SurgTech starting at $15 an hour and specialized in Ortho for $23 an hour. A McD worker can eventually make more then my specialization? A Manager at McD for a living wage can make as much as a Certified Register Nurse? If Living Wage becomes a minimum wage then why would one spend money to become specialized in a chosen field to improve their life?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Don't know. Hence why the idea of having a living wage is silly.

I agree, hence my advocacy for a minimum wage.

 easysauce wrote:

many reasons,

some of which are:

People can apply for only jobs that pay "living" wages if that is the wage they desire,

So you want the state to regulate all wages? Right.

I'll be honest, it sounds like you want to punish the poor.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Don't know. Hence why the idea of having a living wage is silly.

I agree, hence my advocacy for a minimum wage.

 easysauce wrote:

many reasons,

some of which are:

People can apply for only jobs that pay "living" wages if that is the wage they desire,

So you want the state to regulate all wages? Right.

I'll be honest, it sounds like you want to punish the poor.

Nice straw manning, making up total BS, and putting words in my mouth... there being a state definition of how much a living wage actually is, is not regulating all wages, not by a long shot. Its just putting a # to what constitutes a living wage, it forces no one to actually pay that.

You saying I just want to punish the poor is just a farce at best, and an insult at worst.

But do keep arguing on how we can afford to pay people 12$/hr for work that generates less then 12$/hr.... I do so love to see mental gymnastics

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

You might require it, but only if the position meets certain criteria.

And what criteria would you use that could extend across the full scope of jobs?

Personally, IF there was something like this, the criteria would be based solely on the needs of the worker, not the position. Have a semi-blind job app process, wherein an interviewer cannot see the age/housing status/marital status, etc. of the applicant. However, if the applicant is under 18 (so therefore reasonably assumed still living in a parents' household) then they get the "minimum wage" offering first, with some grey area for the college ages, then above 24-25 (or about the time most people should be out of the parents' house and out of college if they went that route) they qualify for the "living wage"

Honestly, having the semi-blind application process would be the only way to do it, otherwise most businesses would be hammered with hiring discrimination lawsuits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
So this living wage. Is it just the man or woman making it? Both? Is living wage based of cost of living? Some area being much higher then other areas. I paid for college to become a certified SurgTech starting at $15 an hour and specialized in Ortho for $23 an hour. A McD worker can eventually make more then my specialization? A Manager at McD for a living wage can make as much as a Certified Register Nurse? If Living Wage becomes a minimum wage then why would one spend money to become specialized in a chosen field to improve their life?

All of what I said above, and I agree with Jihadin here. There's a very fine razors edge of paying people to be able to "live well" and creating a system where there's no incentive for self-improvement.

 easysauce wrote:

But do keep arguing on how we can afford to pay people 12$/hr for work that generates less then 12$/hr.... I do so love to see mental gymnastics

Well, and also paying people 12$ an hour regardless of the local cost of living and still ignoring that 12$ an hour is still not a living wage in some areas... So you have to assume that people have the 'right' to live in any location, even if they cannot afford it and should be subsidized past the minimum wage to live there opposed to be forced to relocate to a place where the national minimum wage is a living wage if it were 12$+ an hour.

The living wage discussion and the national minimum wage issues are two different discussions because a national minimum wage would be that of the base living age to live in the lowest income areas and would need to be adjusted upwards based on individual areas based upon state and local... And that assumes it can be done, give everyone enough money to live in whatever area they feel like and not have the economy break down, jobs simply blip out of existence or massive relocation of industry. And to prove a lot of it means putting a lot of people's existence at risk with no guarantee it will work out for them.

Who knows, this city may be a shining example of how it should work. I think the issue of 'living wage' is way more complicated than the national minimum wage discussion.

And again: what does/should a living wage include?

A free flatscreen and all yu can watch porn?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
A free flatscreen and all yu can watch porn?

Don't need a flatscreen for the second one, just an internet connection.


Honestly, a "living" wage should be able to get you:

-A place with relatively light "bug" issues
-the ability to pay for utilities, food and other expenses (including car note and insurance)
-A reasonably reliable car, as in not something that spends more time in the shop than on the road, something that doesn't spew black smoke whenever it's running, etc.


It should generally be enough that people can keep the roof over their head, food on the table and clothes on the kids' backs, but not so much that people who are making that kind of money "want" to sit back and relax on it.

Why should It pay for a car or children?

 cincydooley wrote:
And again: what does/should a living wage include?

Disco lounge baby, disco lounge. I keep threatening that one day the Boy will return and his room will have disco ball, dance floor, and wet bar. He liked the wet bar part.

 cincydooley wrote:
Why should It pay for a car or children?

And why are we not taking 3 employees, who do the same job, make the same income, live in the same circumstances and have the same expenses... and one of them has no kids, one has 2 kids, and 4 have 4 kids... Why should they all make exactly the same if a 'living wage' should allow them to support their family and fund their kids?

And what if someone has a dual income house and someone else is a single income house... should the dual income house have their salaries cut in half?

This is the problem... there is no single 'minimum wage' which is a 'living wage' for all circumstances and all areas Cost of living.

The real answer is "smurf village" level of communism where everyone hands over a large portion of their income to the government who then doles out an allowance to individuals based upon personal circumstances. The tax code only works if you trust citizens to not be negligent monsters and actually take care of themselves and their offspring and prioritize money towards actual needs.

There is no way to have a single 'wage' which can be 'living' nationwide, fair to all involved, doesn't promote resentment or people checking out or going to a government 'allowance' system. And that assumes that whatever number is generated to be a 'living wage' for the entire nation, even high cost of living areas doesn't oppressively destroy the economy or business.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.

But they also need to know what staff is needed for their business, and if they're any good at all they'll have that number of staff as close to minimal as possible. If wages go up you don't just fire the cleaning staff... because you still need a clean store to remain in business. If you didn't need a clean that was that clean, then you wouldn't have hired so many cleaners in the first place, no matter what you were paying them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Y'know, I can get behind a 10$ minimum wage, Its just enough for what they are meant for, Teenagers and College students to have extra money for stuff. But to make it a livable wage is just wrong I think.

It doesn't matter what you think it is meant for. The basic economic reality is that most people on the minimum wage are trying to provide for themselves and likely a family as well.

And $10 is a livable wage, as long as you're willing to work a couple of jobs and accept a pretty crappy standard of living. So is $9, $8 or less, as long as you continue to accept an increasingly crappy standard of living.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
The problem I have with those numbers is that they don't show total income, only show select expenses, and some are based on assumptions. It's really hard to take your argument seriously with such significant generalities and glaring omissions.

It gives the profit figure. If you have that and the expense item that is is going to increase, then revenue and other expenses and all the rest are irrelevant. Ceterus parabus and all that.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I guess I worded it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that people like a restaurant owner (if theyre any good) absolutely know what their bottom line is. The know the rent/mortgage, how much they spend on food per week, how much in wages, etc. and their bottom line being "I want to remain open and in business" they are going to ensure that line/need is met.

But they also need to know what staff is needed for their business, and if they're any good at all they'll have that number of staff as close to minimal as possible. If wages go up you don't just fire the cleaning staff... because you still need a clean store to remain in business. If you didn't need a clean that was that clean, then you wouldn't have hired so many cleaners in the first place, no matter what you were paying them.

No, they actually will fire staff. They'll require the employees who remain to work harder, possibly for additional pay. They may even take a drop in efficiency. Instead of having 1 server wait on 10 tables an hour he'll settle for 6 if that server is also busing dishes and sweeping the floor and taking out the trash.

 easysauce wrote:
These places have very small profit margins, generally after all expensis its a few %'s as total net profit, despite large amounts of gross profit.

Where in the feth do you get this stuff? I mean seriously, do you actually believe you can just make gak up as you go, or have you been getting business lessons from the hobo living in the local park, or what? Where is this coming from, because holy fething hell it just has nothing to do with anything in the business world.

There is no possible way of generalising profit margins, either as a measure of total revenue, or net assets or whatever. Even just in the restaurant industry it will vary wildly from

Just more of the "bad evil businesses could pay more, they just wont, because they are evil and stuff" paradigm instead of accepting the actual facts of the matter.

You are the only person talking about evil businesses, as a lazy effort to dismiss other people's arguments. Its lame and you should stop it. People are making straight forward economic arguments, and you should either address those with economic arguments, or stop posting.

With the fact of the matter being, increased labour costs, HAVE to be offset by something else, either rising prices, cutting staff, or cutting somthing else. Cutting profits to the point where the business isnt worth it for the owner, seems to be the only option in some peoples books.

Absolute gibberish. You almost, almost managed to understand the most basic reality of this situation, which is that an increase in the price of labour will be offset by some combination of price increases, cut staff, and reduced profits, with the exact make up of each depending on market conditions. But then you went and added that bit that any cut to business profits must reduce profits to the point where the business is no longer worth it for the owner, and turned it in to gibberish.

nkelsch wrote:

This is the problem... there is no single 'minimum wage' which is a 'living wage' for all circumstances and all areas Cost of living.

There really is... If you look at the US military pay scale, and the additional money that military people get, they base it on the military's definitions of minimum living requirements/space for the service member... This is why my wife and I, who were dual military made the same amount of money in BAS (Basic allowance for Subsistance... aka, food). The military determined that I, as a single entity needed X amount of money for food per month, and that's what they gave me.


Honestly, a "Living Wage" should be based on a one person "unit". As such, a living wage for a family with one or more kids would be a lot tighter than the same amount of money for a single bachelor/bachelorette.

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

Then that's a stupid point.

I mean, if we made welfare a billion dollars a second, and taxes 100% of everything earned, then everyone would just live on welfare but be taxed all of it and the whole system would collapse overnight. But to conclude that because an extreme increase would be a disaster then we must not consider a more moderate increase is very stupid.

That is, just because a $15 minimum wage is not viable, that doesn't mean a $10 minimum wage can't be considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
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.

Actually it's the minimum because it is the minimum amount a company is legally allowed to pay. It passes no judgement on the skills of the individual.

In fact, there are jobs that pay above minimum wage despite requiring no skills (though these are often region specific) and some jobs that pay minimum wage despite requiring some level of skills (in fact internships are exempted from minimum wage laws despite requiring pretty high level skillsets from interns).

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.

As I've already explained to you several times, that's complete gibberish. Wages aren't based purely on skills and abilities. The economy is driven by productivity, which is increased through a combination of greater and improved capital, greater technology (including business efficiency) and worker skill level.

As long as you are driving up productivity then you can sustain growing wages, even when the skill levels of workers remain constant.

I'm going to direct this question at some of you that are smarter than me:

Does increasing the minimum wage to, say, $15 devalue other jobs that require higher education?

 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.

It really isn't. Even if every single kid had a microchip inserted in their head that made them make all the right choices through their teenage lives... well there simply won't be skilled jobs for them all when they qualify with perfect scores from their tertiary institution of choice.

The real issue is this weird idea that's crept in to society that anyone who isn't earning a high flying income is a total feth up that we should all shun. 50 years ago, did we refer to the people that served us dinner as losers who didn't deserve a living wage? It used to be that such scorn was reserved for people who didn't work at all, but now it seems we apply it even to people who work full time jobs, and that has flowed through to lots of people insisting that such people don't deserve at least a modest standard of living.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm going to direct this question at some of you that are smarter than me:

Does increasing the minimum wage to, say, $15 devalue other jobs that require higher education?

Not just Higher education, but any job that requires skill. My friend is head bouncer of a club for 14$ an hour. Why should someone who flips burgers get more then him?