A Republican ideal, work until you die

[RDKirk]

And yet, we can see that real wages continue to grow (i.e. wage growth outpaces inflation), especially at the lower rungs as of late.

Not really. Real wages were already 'way behind the cost of living and haven't caught up.

Don't look at "inflation" numbers. That's a result of cherry picking statistics. Look instead of how many hours of labor it takes to purchase specific vital necessities and how that number has changed over time.

For instance, take a college education. When I started as a freshman at the University of Oklahoma, the federal minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and college tuition was $25 per semester hour. Working part-time (20 hours a week) at minimum wage, I could pay off a semester's tuition during that same semester. Today at the University of Oklahoma, tuition is $400 per credit hour; it would take $20 an hour working part-time for a student today to do as well as I did back then.

 

[BPPLEE]

I have had a relatively easy physical life, one career (with a pension) as military intel and a second career (also with a pension) in IT. Desk jobs all my life...I've literally had a computer terminal on my work desk since 1973 (and on my home desk as well since 1983).

Even then, I could detect by the end of my military career that I was aging. When I was in my twenties back in the 70s, I could work all day, literally "disco 'til dawn," grab a shower and a nap and do it all again. There were times we had to work 20/7 weeks...no more than four hours sleep until the situation was over, sometimes for weeks. And we had to be on the ball...we were supplying critical life-and-death information to combat operators. But by the end of my career, I had realized that I couldn't do that stuff anymore. Of course, by then I had been promoted to a level that I wouldn't have to...I was managing such people. But the military itself understood it was a game for the young, so "get promoted or get out" was strict policy, and it was a practical reality even in desk jobs.

Everyone's abilities decrease over time. Warren Buffet doesn't think as acutely as he did when he was 45...but his position and wealth shield him from having to be that kind of wolf anymore.

These are things, though, that I don't think younger people actually feel until they get old enough to realize it.

I agree (as I’m recovering from getting an epidural so I can keep working)

 

[RDKirk]

I did not say they are all greedy, but the greedy ones will take from the servers. As you said, the profit margin is usually small. You must not know many restaurant owners. I have many friends who own restaurants, and often times they take cash from the register at the end of the day, which is not reported to the taxman. They get their money any way they can.

My wife spent a long time in the restaurant business, predominantly as a manger. She says, "If you want servers that don't show up the next day, taking their tips is how you get servers who don't show up the next day."

 

[RDKirk]

This attitude is so divorced from reality that it’s hard to believe one can walk outside with any regularity and still believe it.

For this to hold true, all (or even just most) of the low end service jobs would have to be held by younger people, say, under 30.

But that isn’t remotely the case, is it? No, it’s not. Many folks work low wage jobs their entire lives.

Or they wind up going to such jobs after "retirement."

 

[RDKirk]

It was a conservative whose video started this discussion. and another conservative who kept it going in that vein

No, my "Poe's Law" alarm rang continuously as I read that article.

 

[RDKirk]

No they don't deserve it. They have to earn it. Unless consumers want $30 Jimmy John sandwiches you can't give them a wage to live on. These jobs are not and never have been designed to be careers. They are meant primarily for the part time worker or young worker who is just entering the work force. This is a fundamental disconnect with the supporters of living wages.

There is a fundamental lack of economic knowledge. It's all an emotional appeal. The economic repercussions of this are catastrophic in nature. Businesses won't be able to stay in business and jobs will be lost. The other consequence is that fewer jobs and opportunities will be available. Another is cost increase. We've already seen it. Price increases come with wage increases. Which means might be making more money, but goods are coating more as a result.

Two good examples iny area are in fast food and retail. Businesses have increased their wages, Often close to doubling them but the result is the cost of fast food has come close to doubling in my area and department stores have a large shortage of workers. They can't hire more people because they can't afford it without large increases in cost of goods to the consumer. That means when you go into the store, the shelves are not stocked, you have to wander about the store looking for someone to help you. You are seeing less variety of things for two reasons that the stores can't afford to buy it and there is no one to stock it.

I certainly understand the concept of a wage to live on. It seems like a good thing on the surface. But it is a very shallow argument. It's an emotional appeal. Why shouldn't Sally work a job, any job and earn enough money there to live on. Sounds good!
But there are much deeper problems with that. Oner important factor is human decency I've and development. It's important for people to go on to bigger and better things. People need to search and seek and not be satisfied with status quo. It builds a sense of accomplishment when you stop working part time selling paint and working your way up to full time work as an assistant manager at your local retail store where you make the good money. Or you are encouraged to go the school and pursue a career where you earn the good money.

The covid lockdown revealed something, however: The low-paid jobs that turn out to be essential to society. I think there is a strong argument both moral and practical that such jobs do deserve to make enough money to live on.

 

[RDKirk]

Who's fault is that? No one has to stay in a low wage job their entire lives. And what do consider a low wage job? How much is a low wage job?

Some people do. A heck of a lot of people, actually. People on the left side of the IQ bell curve have to work, too.

 

[RDKirk]

Tell me then why you would make an entire career out of a low paying job serving people in a restaurant. Say you started when you were a teen. Why are you still in this low paying job in your 50:s?

Left side of the bell curve, where half the population resides.

 

[RDKirk]

Well when hamburgers cost $30 they’ll go out of business and those who got a living wage will suddenly have no wages

This is why Warren Buffet touts the concept of raising the earned income credit substantially rather than raising the minimum wage. By raising the earned income credit, that burden is raised above the consumer-small business owner-worker level. It's still a problem, but it becomes the problem of a much larger pool of national resources.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not really. Real wages were already 'way behind the cost of living and haven't caught up.

Don't look at "inflation" numbers. That's a result of cherry picking statistics. Look instead of how many hours of labor it takes to purchase specific vital necessities and how that number has changed over time.

For instance, take a college education. When I started as a freshman at the University of Oklahoma, the federal minimum wage was $1.25 an hour and college tuition was $25 per semester hour. Working part-time (20 hours a week) at minimum wage, I could pay off a semester's tuition during that same semester. Today at the University of Oklahoma, tuition is $400 per credit hour; it would take $20 an hour working part-time for a student today to do as well as I did back then.

The "real" in "real wages" means that it's adjusted for inflation.

We can argue about whether the metrics used to measure inflation are an accurate representation of what it actually costs to live and thrive - and I imagine that there is room for improvement.

Regarding your tuition example, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $12.28 today. That's obviously not $20/hr, but it's closer than $7.25. That tuition has outpaced inflation is a problem, as is the fact that the federal minimum has not kept up. But neither of those means that, overall, real wages haven't grown.

 

[RDKirk]

The thing about an "average" price is that it inherently means there's things cheaper than it. If someone's not making a huge amount of money, generally they'd go for the cheaper ones, not the average ones. If I go to apartments.com and search for Montgomery, Alabama, I can find apartments for quite a bit cheaper than that; the cheapest ones right now are $495/month. That requires a considerably lower income; at your proposed 30%, it would require an annual income of $19,800, or (if working full time), $9.52/hour.

Quality of the neighborhood is not being considered, however.

 

[RDKirk]

The "real" in "real wages" means that it's adjusted for inflation.

We can argue about whether the metrics used to measure inflation are an accurate representation of what it actually costs to live and thrive - and I imagine that there is room for improvement.

Regarding your tuition example, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $12.28 today. That's obviously not $20/hr, but it's closer than $7.25. That tuition has outpaced inflation is a problem, as is the fact that the federal minimum has not kept up. But neither of those means that, overall, real wages haven't grown.

Tuition is not the only thing that has out paced inflation because the "inflation" statistic is cherry-picked. We see the same thing in housing, in the cost of energy, in the cost of medical care, and in the cost of basic foods (a dozen eggs, gallon of milk, loaf of bread, a pound of beef).

Inflation is the wrong figure to look at. The proper figure to look at is the number of hours of labor it takes to make the purchase.

 

[RDKirk]

But getting back to servers: if you can wait tables, you can count money. If you can count money, you can get a job as a bank teller, and work your way into an office job at a bank as a loan officer, which could lead to a higher level job paying six figures, even with just a high school diploma. People work their way up all the time, but it takes some effort.

Your head is in the past. That waiter won't get past the bank's HR department these days.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Tuition is not the only thing that has out paced inflation because the "inflation" statistic is cherry-picked. We see the same thing in housing, in the cost of energy, in the cost of medical care, and in the cost of basic foods (a dozen eggs, gallon of milk, loaf of bread, a pound of beef).

Inflation is the wrong figure to look at. The proper figure to look at is the number of hours of labor it takes to make the purchase.

That's literally what the "real wages" figures track - how many hours of labor it takes to make a purchase.

Inflation isn't cherry-picked so much as it is an average across an assortment of goods. Within that assortment, some things are going to rise more quickly than the average, while others will not. Some will fall. Adjusted for inflation, milk is cheaper than it used to be.

 

[BPPLEE]

The "real" in "real wages" means that it's adjusted for inflation.

We can argue about whether the metrics used to measure inflation are an accurate representation of what it actually costs to live and thrive - and I imagine that there is room for improvement.

Regarding your tuition example, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be $12.28 today. That's obviously not $20/hr, but it's closer than $7.25. That tuition has outpaced inflation is a problem, as is the fact that the federal minimum has not kept up. But neither of those means that, overall, real wages haven't grown.

I could support a $12:28 minimum wage. Most people already make more than that in my area. it’s $20 an hour and above that I think is unrealistic

 

[RDKirk]

That's literally what the "real wages" figures track - how many hours of labor it takes to make a purchase.

That calculation sucks, then. Anyone who was working a job in the 70s can see that someone working the same job in the 2020s cannot live as well with the same amount of labor.

 

[BPPLEE]

My wife spent a long time in the restaurant business, predominantly as a manger. She says, "If you want servers that don't show up the next day, taking their tips is how you get servers who don't show up the next day."

At a place I get pick up orders from quite often I pay online and always leave a tip. Last night a girl brought my food and on the receipt I had to sign there was a space for a tip. I told her I gave a tip when I paid and asked if she was getting them. She checked and said there was no tip on the order so I gave her one and told her she needed to check because it looked like the restaurant was stealing her tips

 

[BCP1928]

I certainly understand the concept of a wage to live on. It seems like a good thing on the surface. But it is a very shallow argument. It's an emotional appeal. Why shouldn't Sally work a job, any job and earn enough money there to live on. Sounds good!
But there are much deeper problems with that. One important factor is human decency I've and development. It's important for people to go on to bigger and better things. People need to search and seek and not be satisfied with status quo. It builds a sense of accomplishment when you stop working part time selling paint and working your way up to full time work as an assistant manager at your local retail store where you make the good money. Or you are encouraged to go the school and pursue a career where you earn the good money.

Matt 6:21. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Tim 5:18 is also relevant here, I think: "For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."

 

[rjs330]

why?

"I don't think we humans were meant to actually retire."

"I'm am going to be retiring from my job in a few years."

That's why.

Why would you completely leave out what else I said? Did you not read it?

Perhaps you ignored it? Go back and reread what I said. It should clarify things for you. If not then please ask and I'll help. Because I think I was pretty clear what I was talking about.

 

[rjs330]

wanted to propose that, I would've done so.

Then what do you want and how do propose to make it happen?

the contrary, I'm reading exactly what you say. You're just doing a poor job of both understanding my point and articulating your own.

No you are not. Apparently you are struggling here. You do an aweful lot of complaining about this pay issue and then offer absolutely zero ideas on what to do about it. Make a complaint about hierarchies and pay and then say something about how you are not trying to do away with hierarchies, geez man you are all over the place.

Let's make it simple shall we?

McDonalds pays their line staff $15 an hour. The staff gets raises based upon their evaluations. So not all are making exactly the same.

Shift managers make $25 an hour also based on performance and experience

Store managers make $35 an hour etc.

What exactly to you propose to do and how do you propose to make it happen?

Tells us exactly what you want to do about it. That way we can be clear about what you think should be going on and how you make sure it does.