Stupid California!

[Bradskii]

So if both union and non-unionized jobs pay well over minimum wage in those states (and in many others)

Yet we still have people struggling, then what are the current minimum wage laws currently accomplishing?

Good grief, it's not too onerous a question to answer yourself.

 

[BCP1928]

So if both union and non-unionized jobs pay well over minimum wage in those states (and in many others)

Yet we still have people struggling, then what are the current minimum wage laws currently accomplishing?

Per the 2022-2023 statistics, only 1.3% of the workforce is paid at minimum wage. The rest of the workforce makes more than that. And 75% of the workforce already makes more than the 15/hour minimum that democrats have been floating as a national minimum wage.


So, I'll ask again, how is that a more effective use of government, as opposed to government merely setting the legal framework for protecting the ability for works councils to exist at the stop-floor/local level, and then getting out of the way and allowing the negotiations to happen?


Raising the minimum wage to say, $20/hour just lays the framework for people who make $20/hour to become the new working poor in 5-10 years when the supply side starts adjusting their prices accordingly.

The pragmatic reality that no matter what you try to enforce from a wage perspective, there are certain jobs and tasks that don't provide enough benefit to warrant paying enough to have an apartment/car with money leftover once things reach equilibrium.

Trying to address that with legally enforced minimum wages that artificially skew that just end up becoming the carrot at the end of the stick that you chase and never quite reach.

A negative income tax (which is a form of UBI) would be better as at least that relies on taxation to accomplish it instead of minimum wage laws, which ends up increasing product/service prices for everyone all the way up the chain.

At least you are willing to go as far as company unions. How would that function in right-to-work-states?

 

[Merrill]

Requiring a minimum wage isn’t some sort of slippery-slope to government setting the wages in all industries in the same sort of way that a government can mandate that vehicles on the road be safe isn’t a mandate that all vehicles have seat warmers.

Hyperbole is a great rhetorical tool when employed correctly and just asinine when not.

"Requiring a minimum wage isn’t some sort of slippery-slope to government setting the wages in all industries"

so let's pretend that the other poster wasn't saying that, and then criticize me for calling it out

he suggested that all companies should pay a "living wage" --and I responded with the point that it would involve wage controls

then he pivoted and said he was talking about the minimum wage

my advice for both of you is

1. Be precise with your language, and be clear with your assertions
2. Don't get angry when others call out the problems with your reasoning and say it is "hyperbole"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

At least you are willing to go as far as company unions. How would that function in right-to-work-states?

Simply put, "right to work" legislation would have to be restrained to only be allowed for salaried positions above a certain amount.

All other positions would have to be allowed to form works councils.

 

[Pommer]

"Requiring a minimum wage isn’t some sort of slippery-slope to government setting the wages in all industries"

so let's pretend that the other poster wasn't saying that, and then criticize me for calling it out

he suggested that all companies should pay a "living wage" --and I responded with the point that it would involve wage controls

then he pivoted and said he was talking about the minimum wage

my advice for both of you is

1. Be precise with your language, and be clear with your assertions
2. Don't get angry when others call out the problems with your reasoning and say it is "hyperbole"

But the “argument” is twofold:
Setting a minimum affects all industries, yes.

Your assertion appears to say that the big bad bureaucratic machine will dictate what janitors and CEO will be paid in specific industries.

These are two separate arguments…which one should we tackle firstly?

 

[Bradskii]

he suggested that all companies should pay a "living wage" --and I responded with the point that it would involve wage controls

then he pivoted and said he was talking about the minimum wage

No wage controls, other than an employer is not to pay less than the minimum agreed wage. That seems a clear as day to me. Maybe not you. And that minimum wage is aka 'a living wage' - the minimum you need to live a basic life, where all the essentials are covered.

 

[probinson]

where all the essentials are covered.

Who gets to decide what it "essential"?

 

[Bradskii]

Who gets to decide what it "essential"?

In this thread, I do. I listed them earlier. In real life, the people who nominate the minimum wage. I'm sure you'd be able to think of some basic necessities that would need to be covered. Like, I dunno, food and a bed. Feel free to add to that. I'd be interested to know what you'd include.

Bear in mind that the average earnings are roughly double what the average minimum wage is. So that you are setting a very low bar indeed when you say 'This amount and no less'.

 

[probinson]

In this thread, I do. I listed them earlier. In real life, the people who nominate the minimum wage. I'm sure you'd be able to think of some basic necessities that would need to be covered. Like, I dunno, food and a bed. Feel free to add to that. I'd be interested to know what you'd include.

How much food? What brand names would be allowed? Or should it all be generic? What kind of living arrangement? How many bedrooms? How 'bout a car? Or bus fare?

This is my problem with the term "living wage". It is highly subjective what someone determines to be a "living wage". How would we make sure that the people that receive this living wage to are good stewards with that money and actually use it for their living expense? Speaking from experience, I've made some pretty foolish financial decisions in my lifetime and spent money on things I absolutely did not need. How would you mitigate people being poor stewards of their "living wage"?

"Living wage" implies that there is a consistent standard for living expenses across the board. But there is not.

 

[Bradskii]

How much food? What brand names would be allowed? Or should it all be generic? What kind of living arrangement? How many bedrooms? How 'bout a car? Or bus fare?

Are you saying that it's too difficult for someone to put a price on? We are talking about somewhere in the region of say $15 an hour for some states. So that's approx. $600 a week (we'll assume no tax).

The average grocery bill is $270 a week. Knock that back to an absolute minimum $150 - I guess I could just get by on that.
Average one bed apartment rent is $400 a week. Allow $300. It won't be somewhere you'd want to live, but that's all you've got.
Allow $10 a day for transport. That's another $50.
Say $50 for utilities.

That leaves $50 a week to cover clothing, entertainment, health, emergencies etc.

If you think that's too little to live on then so do I. That's basic existence. God help anyone who has to live like that. And I guess you know what the federal minimum is. It's $7.25. And you are asking if it should include a car? Or whether brand name foods are sufficient? Maybe an extra bedroom when you have people visiting?

Gimme a break. It's subsistence living at double the national wage.

 

[probinson]

Are you saying that it's too difficult for someone to put a price on? We are talking about somewhere in the region of say $15 an hour for some states. So that's approx. $600 a week (we'll assume no tax).

The average grocery bill is $270 a week. Knock that back to an absolute minimum $150 - I guess I could just get by on that.
Average one bed apartment rent is $400 a week. Allow $300. It won't be somewhere you'd want to live, but that's all you've got.
Allow $10 a day for transport. That's another $50.
Say $50 for utilities.

That leaves $50 a week to cover clothing, entertainment, health, emergencies etc.

If you think that's too little to live on then so do I. That's basic existence. God help anyone who has to live like that. And I guess you know what the federal minimum is. It's $7.25. And you are asking if it should include a car? Or whether brand name foods are sufficient? Maybe an extra bedroom when you have people visiting?

Gimme a break. It's subsistence living at double the national wage.

OK. So back to the original question. What, in your opinion, is a fair living wage?

And you completely glossed over the issue of people not spending their money wisely. Do you think that issue will resolve itself with the introduction of a living wage?

 

[Bradskii]

OK. So back to the original question. What, in your opinion, is a fair living wage?

The minimum wage is not determined by what's fair. That's a subjective decision. It's what a person would need to live a basic life with all basic needs covered. As I just pointed out, $15 an hour is about as minimum as you could possibly go. God help anyone having to survive on that.

And you completely glossed over the issue of people not spending their money wisely. Do you think that issue will resolve itself with the introduction of a living wage?

I didn't gloss over it. It's simply not relevant. What people do with what they get paid is entirely up to them. If they want to spend it all on a two day bender or give it to charity has no bearing on what the amount should be. The government is not like a parent handing out pocket money.

 

[BCP1928]

OK. So back to the original question. What, in your opinion, is a fair living wage?

And you completely glossed over the issue of people not spending their money wisely. Do you think that issue will resolve itself with the introduction of a living wage?

I thought the thread was about minimum wage? What a "fair" wage is has to be taken up almost on a case by case basis.

 

[probinson]

The minimum wage is not determined by what's fair. That's a subjective decision.

Very subjective.

I didn't gloss over it. It's simply not relevant. What people do with what they get paid is entirely up to them. If they want to spend it all on a two day bender or give it to charity has no bearing on what the amount should be. The government is not like a parent handing out pocket money.

Well then, I guess paying people a living wage won't help with the fact that they still won't have enough to live on if they choose to squander it.

 

[probinson]

I thought the thread was about minimum wage? What a "fair" wage is has to be taken up almost on a case by case basis.

True. But the term "living wage" has been introduced. That is also an entirely subjective term.

 

[Bradskii]

Well then, I guess paying people a living wage won't help with the fact that they still won't have enough to live on if they choose to squander it.

Neither will you have enough if you waste what you are paid. That's a truism whether you get paid a few bucks an hour or a few hundred an hour.

Was that meant to be an argument against minimum wages? It seems to have no connection with it at all.