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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

... Is this supposed to be high, or low ?

It's higher than the national of $7.25. If that's high or low... more complicated.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It's higher than the national of $7.25. If that's high or low... more complicated.

The current minimum hourly wage is 7.52€ here, (8.79$US) but keep in mind that's after all the deduction for healthcare and stuff, you get lots of additional benefits, and if you don't make the minimum of 1150€ per month, you'll get further support, so comparing the two values is actually pretty difficult.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

$12.65 in BC later it will be $15 and rent is still cheaper, US minimum wage shocks me (well I guess not, there's a lot of political interest in screwing over the working class) how low it is.

Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage, so no help in comparisons from here.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage, so no help in comparisons from here.

Nor Finland for that matter, even if laws talk about paying something "fair". But the unions in our countries have probably made it so almost any conceivable job has some sort of minimum pay scale to point at. Just about every line of work is under some union, even if you're not paying to be a member, and employers will pay non-union employees the same because else they'd relly have a problem.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

$12.65 in BC later it will be $15 and rent is still cheaper, US minimum wage shocks me (well I guess not, there's a lot of political interest in screwing over the working class) how low it is.

It's not the minimum that's a problem it's that employers almost universally refuse to provide decent raises based on performance. 16-year old shows up to work his first job; minimum wage. Person with years of experience in the service industry needs a job from moving into town; minimum wage. After a year of employment doing the bare minimum; minimum wage +0.30. After a year of employment going above and beyond every week; minimum wage +0.50. Then employers wonder why their employees have no motivation to do anything beyond the minimum.

If anything working at a place for a long period seems like an excuse for employers to load on more duties (that they don't pay extra for) since there's less a chance of that person leaving.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

$12.65 in BC later it will be $15 and rent is still cheaper, US minimum wage shocks me (well I guess not, there's a lot of political interest in screwing over the working class) how low it is.

It's not the minimum that's a problem it's that employers almost universally refuse to provide decent raises based on performance. 16-year old shows up to work his first job; minimum wage. Person with years of experience in the service industry needs a job from moving into town; minimum wage. After a year of employment doing the bare minimum; minimum wage +0.30. After a year of employment going above and beyond every week; minimum wage +0.50. Then employers wonder why their employees have no motivation to do anything beyond the minimum.

If anything working at a place for a long period seems like an excuse for employers to load on more duties (that they don't pay extra for) since there's less a chance of that person leaving.

That's a problem here as well, the incentive to stay if you don't like the work is next to none, at least with minimum wage jobs with little to no raises regardless of quality of work.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-wages-drop-while-companies-spend-billions-to-boost-stocks/

The tax-cuts went to boost stocks and not increase wages, like they were solid on. Shock!

I guess that is one reason we are not seeing wages rise.

Six months after the Tax Cut and Jobs Act became law, there's still little evidence that the average job holder is feeling the benefit.

Worker pay in the second quarter dropped nearly one percent below its first-quarter level, according to the PayScale Index, one measure of worker pay. When accounting for inflation, the drop is even steeper. Year-over-year, rising prices have eaten up still-modest pay gains for many workers, with the result that real wages fell 1.4 percent from the prior year, according to PayScale. The drop was broad, with 80 percent of industries and two-thirds of metro areas affected.

"Now, economic confidence has been good, we're in a strong economy, GDP is growing, but the question has been, where's the paycheck?" said Katie Bardaro, vice president of data analytics at PayScale.

The answer is, largely, in the companies' coffers. Businesses are spending nearly $700 billion on repurchasing their own stock so far this year, according to research from TrimTabs. Corporations set a record in Q2, announcing $433 billion worth of buybacks — nearly doubling the previous record, which was set in Q1.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read about 900/month being high rent for an apartment. The cheapest apartments in my area (San Diego suburbs) start at 1450 for a 1-bedroom. And that is not for a nice or safe location.

My god, that is a lot of money.

Aren't you a fellow BC-ian? $1450 for a 1 bedroom is pretty 'affordable' for anything in the Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland / Lower Island area.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

$12.65 in BC later it will be $15 and rent is still cheaper, US minimum wage shocks me (well I guess not, there's a lot of political interest in screwing over the working class) how low it is.

It's not the minimum that's a problem it's that employers almost universally refuse to provide decent raises based on performance. 16-year old shows up to work his first job; minimum wage. Person with years of experience in the service industry needs a job from moving into town; minimum wage. After a year of employment doing the bare minimum; minimum wage +0.30. After a year of employment going above and beyond every week; minimum wage +0.50. Then employers wonder why their employees have no motivation to do anything beyond the minimum.

If anything working at a place for a long period seems like an excuse for employers to load on more duties (that they don't pay extra for) since there's less a chance of that person leaving.

In my experience around a decade back, a year going above and beyond would net you 0.25, not 0.50. The bare minimum probably won't net you a raise at all... but then, if all you're doing is the bare minimum to avoid being fired you probably SHOULDN'T get a raise, nor expect one.

 Vulcan wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF to California the minimum wage is $11.

$12.65 in BC later it will be $15 and rent is still cheaper, US minimum wage shocks me (well I guess not, there's a lot of political interest in screwing over the working class) how low it is.

It's not the minimum that's a problem it's that employers almost universally refuse to provide decent raises based on performance. 16-year old shows up to work his first job; minimum wage. Person with years of experience in the service industry needs a job from moving into town; minimum wage. After a year of employment doing the bare minimum; minimum wage +0.30. After a year of employment going above and beyond every week; minimum wage +0.50. Then employers wonder why their employees have no motivation to do anything beyond the minimum.

If anything working at a place for a long period seems like an excuse for employers to load on more duties (that they don't pay extra for) since there's less a chance of that person leaving.

In my experience around a decade back, a year going above and beyond would net you 0.25, not 0.50. The bare minimum probably won't net you a raise at all... but then, if all you're doing is the bare minimum to avoid being fired you probably SHOULDN'T get a raise, nor expect one.

I agree. The numbers were arbitrary and probably not entirely accurate but that isn't particularly important to explain the point; extra effort nets little to no benefit so minimum wage becomes less it's namesake and more 'actual wage'.

 Easy E wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/worker-wages-drop-while-companies-spend-billions-to-boost-stocks/

The tax-cuts went to boost stocks and not increase wages, like they were solid on. Shock!

I guess that is one reason we are not seeing wages rise.

Six months after the Tax Cut and Jobs Act became law, there's still little evidence that the average job holder is feeling the benefit.

Worker pay in the second quarter dropped nearly one percent below its first-quarter level, according to the PayScale Index, one measure of worker pay. When accounting for inflation, the drop is even steeper. Year-over-year, rising prices have eaten up still-modest pay gains for many workers, with the result that real wages fell 1.4 percent from the prior year, according to PayScale. The drop was broad, with 80 percent of industries and two-thirds of metro areas affected.

"Now, economic confidence has been good, we're in a strong economy, GDP is growing, but the question has been, where's the paycheck?" said Katie Bardaro, vice president of data analytics at PayScale.

The answer is, largely, in the companies' coffers. Businesses are spending nearly $700 billion on repurchasing their own stock so far this year, according to research from TrimTabs. Corporations set a record in Q2, announcing $433 billion worth of buybacks — nearly doubling the previous record, which was set in Q1.

I work for Caterpillar, we all got raises AND a higher bonus rate. Subaru also got a raise here in town. I'd have to check some people that work in the other industries here in the greater Lafayette, Indiana area but it seems that the tax cuts did indeed to the trick here. Now Walmart and the minimum wage retail stores and fast food joints? I doubt they saw anything from it.

Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

 feeder wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I chuckled when I read about 900/month being high rent for an apartment. The cheapest apartments in my area (San Diego suburbs) start at 1450 for a 1-bedroom. And that is not for a nice or safe location.

My god, that is a lot of money.

Aren't you a fellow BC-ian? $1450 for a 1 bedroom is pretty 'affordable' for anything in the Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland / Lower Island area.

Don't you need to go to the outer cities to get reasonable rent like Surrey, Delta and Langley? Like I started to find at least decent stuff in the $900-$1000 range on Kijiji that didn't look like an obvious scam, I swear I saw cheaper stuff a few months ago.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

And the lie continues...

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why are people choosing to be employed in low-skill, low-pay, low-security gig economy jobs instead of choosing the kind of job that their parents and grand-parents chose?

And I do really want to point out that *someone* has to do those low paying jobs. There aren't enough teenagers to fill them all so they need to pay a living wage. What "living wage" means is a discussion all it's own but while I don't think burger flipping at a fast food restaurant should pay a lot I also would be very curious to hear the reasoning behind why someone working that job should not be able to have a place to live, food to eat, and be able to afford other basics.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Part of it is the fact that low end job wages aren't rising, and there are a lot more people in low end jobs now than 10 or 20 years ago.

People in better jobs, like your Caterpillar and Subaru people, are getting some rises.

I hate to be that guy, mostly, but some of those low paying jobs are low paying for a reason, and competition doesn't drive the wages up like other jobs. It's a reverse domino effect with anything $15 an hour and above. One job decides to pay marginally to nominally better than the others, they bump their pay up a touch to keep competitive, dependent on benefits package as well. Lower paying jobs go into it with a churn and burn attitude. For every worker who gets dissatisfied and bails for better pay, even slightly better pay, there are two people just starting out in the work force that will take that job. Sucks, but that's the flow of the market. It only becomes an issue when you have someone who endeavors to be a career shelf stocker at Target. There's better to be had, and a job like that isn't meant to be a main household income job.

Why?

Because people like Just Tony need to look down their nose at other people to feel superior.

There is no argument for "These jobs are supposed to suck" beyond "They make me feel better about my job."

There is enough in the US to go around that no one should be struggling. But then the high and fething mighty wouldn't get to look down their nose at people and dismiss them. So they stand up and scream "No no no!" when someone suggests that minimum wage should get modernized.

We had a guy in our gaming group who posted constantly about how dare people at Mcdonalds thought they deserved a living wage. When we called him out on the fact he too would get a raise if minimum wage went up, to pay him what he was worth for his oh so arduous training, he was a part supplier in a warehouse in a job he lucked into, he proceeded to rationally block each and every one of us.

These people aren't looking for anything but a reason to be superior. They have to have more and be better. That's all there is to this and arguing otherwise is dishonest and shows you really are craven.

I read an interesting piece a while back, (and I infuriatingly can't find it again), that showed why people are drawn to 'conservative' and 'progressive' platforms. People put importance on different values, and one of the things that conservatives generally value highly is a hierarchy of order.

Something that is socially viewed as 'easy', must, by virtue of this hierarchy, be worth less than something that is viewed as 'difficult'.

Flipping burgers at McDonalds and running a machine press for Ford are both basic, entry level jobs. The hierarchy of order demands that one is valued more than the other.

It's not necessarily about 'feeling superior' but more about trying to ensure reality more closely aligns with your world view.

Funny how that 'World View' coincides with being an donkey-cave so easily. The biggest jerks I've met have all shared this mentality. feth anyone with less than them.

Foodstamps? bs they don't need it. HUD? Work harder for that roof over your head you lazy bums. WIC? How dare my tax dollars go to feeding some kid instead of building tanks we don't need!

You can sugar coat it however you want. At the end of the day their not a good human being for believing and acting like this.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Funny how that 'World View' coincides with being an donkey-cave so easily. The biggest jerks I've met have all shared this mentality. feth anyone with less than them.

Foodstamps? bs they don't need it. HUD? Work harder for that roof over your head you lazy bums. WIC? How dare my tax dollars go to feeding some kid instead of building tanks we don't need!

You can sugar coat it however you want. At the end of the day their not a good human being for believing and acting like this.

Sure, if your end goal is to feel righteous and superior to those 'donkey-caves'. But no one is going to examine their thinking and POV by being shouted at and told they are trash.

When I was younger, I held some pretty toxic views and I didn't think I was a bad person, that was just how I saw the world and how I related to it. It wasn't until I was forced to learn about my thought process that I realized I was carrying critical thinking errors like Black and White Thinking.

You may say this kind of stuff should be obvious, and that people who don't come to the same conclusion as you are (stupid, evil, heartless, whatever), but that really doesn't help anyone.

Point of the fact is though, they are being heartless, stupid, and evil. Calling it feel good justifications 'World View' and 'Point of View' and so on, isn't helping anything.

In fact all I can do here is point it out. All it takes is a look to the US politics thread and many posts in here to tell anyone that these people aren't magically going to change their minds because someone makes a rational and reasoned debate with them. Usually it's just the opposite because our underdeveloped monkey brains go "He's challenging our thinking, throw gak at him!"

I don't subscribe to this bs of "We have to be better than them." Being better than them has done nothing but put people trying to do good on the backfoot and give ground to these jerks.

Someone acts like a damn donkey-cave you call them on it. You can tell me it doesn't help all day long. But neither does wasting your breath on people who aren't gonna budge no matter what you tell them or explain to them.

Believe me, we tried to educate the guy in our group for about a week about why he was being petty, with a much nicer attitude than I have now mind you I'm just burnt out anymore, and for a week it was a stonewall temper tantrum how we were wrong.

Sometimes it just is that simple. Sometimes people just suck.

Don't make this thread a dog-pile on other members.

I think people may have better luck having a discussion around whether a full time job should pay enough to live.

Questions like "Should a McDonalds worker receive $15 an hour?" turns a lot of people off, you'll get a lot of "No". Asking the question of "Should someone working 40+ hours a week at McDonalds be able to have food to eat and a place to live?" is a question much harder to answer in the negative to. The reality is that in a lot of places having a place to live and food to eat, damn near requires the $15 an hour. But each question is likely to get very different responses.

Look, calling someone a bad person is not going to convince them that they should change their mind. Sure it may make you feel better but it doesn't help solve the problem. Feeling superior because you are not a "donkey-cave" may make you feel better but it doesn't help the situation, so you're really no better than the person you're looking down on, neither of you are helping the problem.

Don't insult, try and understand and educate. Some people won't respond but especially on the Internet there are a lot of people that silently read threads like these. A well reasoned argument that isn't insulting may make them at least consider their views on the topic.

Income inequality like we are seeing right now (at least in the US) has been a major indicator of severe social unrest historically. Whether it will be again now is more open to discussion but I would very much like to avoid social unrest like widespread riots or revolution.

 vonjankmon wrote:


Questions like "Should a McDonalds worker receive $15 an hour?" turns a lot of people off, you'll get a lot of "No". Asking the question of "Should someone working 40+ hours a week at McDonalds be able to have food to eat and a place to live?" is a question much harder to answer in the negative to. The reality is that in a lot of places having a place to live and food to eat, damn near requires the $15 an hour. But each question is likely to get very different responses.

The problem is, many of the same people who shout down $15/hour will give the same reasoning for their being against your second question. . . You've seen it ITT, and if you've been on these fora long enough, you'll have seen it in other threads. The typical trickle-down BS theories being espoused, that somehow, a "McJob" holds no skills for the person working it, and that those jobs are "for" a certain class/type of person, despite the very drastically different reality and all these things mean that working McD's means the person working it "deserves" less.

Thing is, there IS a skillset to working fast food. I mean, I look through the drive thru window, and I see the "standard" set forth by the company. . . 60 seconds, and I'm supposed to have my food and driving away. . . If I'm ordering for just myself, that's no problem, but if I've ordered for my whole family (4 people) that becomes a bit more tricky. That would equate to roughly 15 seconds per person's meal to achieve that 60 second goal. . . And they have to repeat that same 60 second standard over and over and over and over and over. . . for 4-8 hours per day (assuming a part timer works a 4 hour shift, and up to the "standard" 8 hour work day) with the only breaks being the legally required ones and the short lunch break. Most of the people who are so dead set on low-wage workers earning what they're actually worth tend to stfu when you challenge them to work those jobs. Challenge them to meet those same standards, and they know they can't do it.

I work for a Fortune 100 company and in light of the Trump tax breaks and all, the entire US division announced an across the board minimum wage increase to $16/hr for every employee. This was a significant jump for a number of positions.

The funny thing is that those "easy" service industry jobs are some of the hardest in the country. I doubt even 1 in 5 CEOs of those companies could last a month working an entry position. I had an office job that involved a bunch of moving numbers around, running programs to make them match other numbers, and contacting people for better numbers when they didn't match. None of it was beyond what the average high schooler could achieve, and it required a hell of a lot less effort than my old grocery store job. Still paid 50% more.