Just because minimum wage jobs weren't aimed toward primary income earners doesn't mean that's still true today. Plenty of people are working three and four minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet because they don't have the means or opportunity to advance. Just because you were able to raise yourself up out of that level doesn't mean everyone has that capacity, but that doesn't negate their need for a living wage.
That's not the business owner's problem; It's not their responsibility to compensate you based on your situation in life. Workers are paid to perform a task, the value of that task doesn't change based on who's doing it.
That's precisely why we turn to the government to solve the problem, because business owners aren't invested in the lives of their workers. Labor has been transformed from an essential investment into a fungible cost, especially since productivity and wages have been divorced. The value of the labor being performed hasn't been reflected in wages in a long, long time.
It's not businesses' job to solve this "problem" though, just like it's not their responsibility to be "invested in the lives of their workers". Labor is transactional: you perform a task for which you are compensated; that is the beginning and the end of the relationship. It's none of your employer's business what you do on your off time, nor is it their responsibility to compensate you for it. If someone feels that they're not being fairly compensated for their labor, then they're free to either renegotiate, or to seek other employment, but this notion that employers should be forced to overpay for labor because of conditions and circumstances that they have absolutely no control over, is flat out ridiculous.
And the value of minimum wage labor is absolutely reflected in the wage, as it always has been. Sweeping floors, mowing lawns, waiting tables, flipping burgers, these jobs are largely the same now as they've always been.
It's not possible to renegotiate or find better employment when "industry standards" keep wages artificially low. We have an unequal power relationship between businesses and their employees with businesses holding the lion's share of the power and keeping the lion's share of what the employees produce. The result of what you describe is that businesses get subsidized by government as workers turn to public assistance to survive. If we're going to keep doing that then it's perfectly appropriate to have the government regulate businesses in proportion to the amount that they're being subsidized through cheap labor.
This is where we get different schools of thought. Should everyone work together for the good of the collective or should things stay the same and whoever is born in a good situation or gets lucky get all of the wealth and power?
When we have an increased population, but a huge decrease in available low skill work, what should people do?
The minimum wage is not "artificially low", it's low for a reason: these are jobs that require no special skills, than can be done by nearly anyone with little to no training.
Of course the employers have the "lion's share of the power" as it relates to their employees, they're the employers. As for"keeping the lion's share of what the employees produce", again, of course they do- they're the ones paying for the production in the first place. Employees are not partners, they're not owners, they're entitled to their agreed upon compensation and that's it. Period.
You have this ill-conceived notion that businesses are some kind of social program- they're not; businesses exist to make money, that is their sole function. A business pays you to do a job, that's it; your situation in life is neither their responsibility, nor their problem. As I said earlier, you are perfectly free to negotiate- be it individually or collectively, for higher wages, or to find other employment.
Another name for "luck" is hard work. You are never locked into your station in life in this country, there is always the opportunity for advancement if you are willing to do the work required. There are countless stories of people who were born into bleak, oppressive, Dickensian levels of poverty, and not only have they risen above, but they've gone on to become some of the most successful people on the planet. Go read Oprah's life story, and then tell me how hard life is for someone working at a fast food joint.
Success- hell, life in general, is not easy, and anyone who tells you it should be, is selling something.
They are most certainly artificially low. Try running the fast food industry without workers. Then come back and try to tell me their labor isn't worth anything.
The thing is not everyone is provided with the same mental and intellectual tools in life. Should someone be punished to poverty for lacking the intelligence or emotional fortitude to rise above the station they were born into? I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
So, to your mind, expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and their situation in life, is a "punishment"?
There are very few conditions in life that cannot be overcome with hard work and determination. Is it easy? Of course not, nor should it be, but it's certainly possible, and not that uncommon. If someone isn't willing to put in the work, then that's their choice, and one they're free to make, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to subsidize that choice.
Try running the fast food industry without workers
Not a problem. We've had the ability to create nearly fully automatic fast food restaurantssince the mid '60s, but the concept was just too outlandish back then, but now that people are comfortable with automation, and had half a century's worth of technological advancement, take a look at the answer to $15 an hour. Self-checkout lanes are popping up more and more, iPads and touch screens are replacing servers at some full-service restaurants, and ordering/paying from mobile devices is becoming downright commonplace.
But it's not about hard work and determination. For one, there are still tons of manual labor centered jobs that are necessary for society to function. We'll likely always need retail staff regardless of how automated retail becomes, custodial staff, construction centered manual laborers, fruit pickers, among others. Those are all typically minimum wage, but they're absolutely necessary, and most low-skill jobs are backbreaking work in high-pressure environments.
And yes, I do believe that forcing people to work for a pittance for a job that's incorrectly perceived as being low value is a punishment. And I think it unjust to view a worker as being lesser for doing a job that some believe is for lesser people. I'm sorry, but your attitudes about this are extremely frustrating to me. It seems as if you think that a person's job and position in society are a reflection of their morality and value as a human being. Do not confuse someones economic worth with their absolute worth; they are absolutely independent of one another.
You can make all of the emotional appeals you want, it doesn't change the basic economic facts, and those are what we need to deal with.
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that; whether you're a 16 year-old looking for a summer job, or a 35 year-old single mother with two kids to feed, the value of the job remains the same. It's not a company's responsibility to pay more for a job than it's worth, simply because the worker "needs it more".
If I'm wrong, then there should be nothing at all to worry about. The Government can keep mandating higher and higher wages and everything will be just peachy. Time will determine who is right, and who is wrong.
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that
No one is arguing that the value of low skilled labor is and should be low compared to that of high skilled labor where skilled labor is in short supply. The question is what should the floor value be for labor? Even today's meager minimum wage is set to a value higher than that dictated purely by market forces. Are you suggesting there should be no floor? If so look to Bangladesh or China. Is that the kind of labor market you want? The minimum wage should not be determined by market forces only, there should be safeguards built in to ensure a decent quality of life for all workers.
Whether you like it or not- whether you agree with it or not, wages are subject to market forces, namely supply and demand. When you mandate a wage that’s higher than market value, you create an imbalance in the market that the market will correct. In this case it means that people are going to lose their jobs. When you increase the cost of wages, you increase both: the quality of labor that employers have to choose from, and the quality of labor they demand; this means that the lowest-skilled, least-educated workers (the very workers you’re claiming to want to help), are going to get priced out of the market.
If you want wages for low skill jobs to go up, then you need to reduce the surplus of workers we have in this country, and that’s all there is to it. The real unemployment rate is still over 10%, and the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in nearly 40 years; to put it plainly it’s a buyer’s market for labor right now.
I love how no one ever complains about market forces when they work in their favor, well this is the other side of the equation, and you have to take the good with the bad.
Not only are you demonstrably wrong just like the last twenty-two times people predicted doom when the minimum wage was raised, but people are trying to prevent the government from doing what we need it to do.
I'm skeptical. Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from. Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices. It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth. I also happen to live in an area where the minimum wage was raised to double the national average and the local economy is one of the strongest in the nation.
Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from.
It does actually. It increases the number of people who are willing to work these jobs, meaning that employers will have their choice of a much wider field of applicants, a field that will include higher-qualified, higher-skilled workers; workers who weren't willing to do these jobs for $7.25 hr, will be willing to do them for $15 an hour.
Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices.
No, it really won't.
You're talking about over $16,000 in additional revenue, per minimum wage employee, that a business would have to generate in order to simply maintain their current level of profitability. That's to say nothing of all the supervisors and assistant managers, making $10 - $15 an hour that are now going to have to be bumped up.
From where did people ever get this notion that businesses can simply generate additional revenue on demand, markets be damned?
It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth.
No it hasn't. Not ever. That's an economic fallacy that was disproven over 160 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat. Raising wages does not create economic growth, it redistributes wealth. The only thing that creates economic growth is production.
I didn't say that most of the jobs are done by teens, I said they SHOULD be done by teens. Propping up a straw man as if I made a different argument is disingenuous. And I wouldn't trust the Department of Labor website you linked, since they can't seem to even calculate the actual unemployment rate.
Again, working the fry-a-lator is not a career, nor should it be an income for some trying to start a family. It's a job to get out of, not to stay in. Having a minimum wage at all is just another regulation control by big businesses to drive little businesses under. The minimum wage will rise when corporations decide that their pawns in Congress will allow it, but don't expect it to pay for a real living standard for very long, if at all. Remove the price controls and you will have teens at full employment because employers will be able to pay them at a rate that matches their labor. As for the 40 year old still making hamburgers, he might have to get a gig that requires more training, like working at a Home Depot (something a teen wouldn't be allowed to do since it requires training and access to equipment that can be dangerous).
If minimum wage actually worked, it would've solved the employment problem a long time again. Government controls don't work on business because the government is terrible at running things and big money has plenty of time to sway the rules in their favor.
It's always fun to talk about what SHOULD be, but we have to deal with what IS. And the reality is that there aren't enough jobs to go around so a lot of adults are stuck working minimum wage jobs while they struggle to make ends meet. The "free market" has never cared what people are paid and has never offered realistic solutions for social and economic problems. This is why people have repeatedly turned to the government to resolve what businesses have no incentive to correct.
That's exactly what the Roman Empire did and you can see how well that worked out. A realistic solution to the problems of this world is to stop going to the people that caused them for the answers.
That's a new one. I've heard that the Roman Empire fell because of reliance on barbarian mercenaries, lead poisoning, paganism and even because of gay marriage. I've never before heard that the Roman Empire fell because it rejected the Free Market Fairy.
It was a combination of many things, but mostly economic. Devaluing their currency to continue wars and expand the Empire. The Republic had a better balance of competing interest, but the Empire was more centralized, like all dictatorships. All the resources in Rome were eventually gobbled up to continue the empire and like the U.S., you were either politically connected businessman that supplied the endless needs of empire or you were just another chump that got taxed into oblivion.
Oh dear. I think that's the first myth busted here.
Just because minimum wage jobs weren't aimed toward primary income earners doesn't mean that's still true today. Plenty of people are working three and four minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet because they don't have the means or opportunity to advance. Just because you were able to raise yourself up out of that level doesn't mean everyone has that capacity, but that doesn't negate their need for a living wage.
That's not the business owner's problem; It's not their responsibility to compensate you based on your situation in life. Workers are paid to perform a task, the value of that task doesn't change based on who's doing it.
That's precisely why we turn to the government to solve the problem, because business owners aren't invested in the lives of their workers. Labor has been transformed from an essential investment into a fungible cost, especially since productivity and wages have been divorced. The value of the labor being performed hasn't been reflected in wages in a long, long time.
It's not businesses' job to solve this "problem" though, just like it's not their responsibility to be "invested in the lives of their workers". Labor is transactional: you perform a task for which you are compensated; that is the beginning and the end of the relationship. It's none of your employer's business what you do on your off time, nor is it their responsibility to compensate you for it. If someone feels that they're not being fairly compensated for their labor, then they're free to either renegotiate, or to seek other employment, but this notion that employers should be forced to overpay for labor because of conditions and circumstances that they have absolutely no control over, is flat out ridiculous.
And the value of minimum wage labor is absolutely reflected in the wage, as it always has been. Sweeping floors, mowing lawns, waiting tables, flipping burgers, these jobs are largely the same now as they've always been.
It's not possible to renegotiate or find better employment when "industry standards" keep wages artificially low. We have an unequal power relationship between businesses and their employees with businesses holding the lion's share of the power and keeping the lion's share of what the employees produce. The result of what you describe is that businesses get subsidized by government as workers turn to public assistance to survive. If we're going to keep doing that then it's perfectly appropriate to have the government regulate businesses in proportion to the amount that they're being subsidized through cheap labor.
This is where we get different schools of thought. Should everyone work together for the good of the collective or should things stay the same and whoever is born in a good situation or gets lucky get all of the wealth and power?
When we have an increased population, but a huge decrease in available low skill work, what should people do?
The minimum wage is not "artificially low", it's low for a reason: these are jobs that require no special skills, than can be done by nearly anyone with little to no training.
Of course the employers have the "lion's share of the power" as it relates to their employees, they're the employers. As for"keeping the lion's share of what the employees produce", again, of course they do- they're the ones paying for the production in the first place. Employees are not partners, they're not owners, they're entitled to their agreed upon compensation and that's it. Period.
You have this ill-conceived notion that businesses are some kind of social program- they're not; businesses exist to make money, that is their sole function. A business pays you to do a job, that's it; your situation in life is neither their responsibility, nor their problem. As I said earlier, you are perfectly free to negotiate- be it individually or collectively, for higher wages, or to find other employment.
Another name for "luck" is hard work. You are never locked into your station in life in this country, there is always the opportunity for advancement if you are willing to do the work required. There are countless stories of people who were born into bleak, oppressive, Dickensian levels of poverty, and not only have they risen above, but they've gone on to become some of the most successful people on the planet. Go read Oprah's life story, and then tell me how hard life is for someone working at a fast food joint.
Success- hell, life in general, is not easy, and anyone who tells you it should be, is selling something.
They are most certainly artificially low. Try running the fast food industry without workers. Then come back and try to tell me their labor isn't worth anything.
The thing is not everyone is provided with the same mental and intellectual tools in life. Should someone be punished to poverty for lacking the intelligence or emotional fortitude to rise above the station they were born into? I don't think weakness is something to be punished.
So, to your mind, expecting people to take responsibility for themselves and their situation in life, is a "punishment"?
There are very few conditions in life that cannot be overcome with hard work and determination. Is it easy? Of course not, nor should it be, but it's certainly possible, and not that uncommon. If someone isn't willing to put in the work, then that's their choice, and one they're free to make, but that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility to subsidize that choice.
Not a problem. We've had the ability to create nearly fully automatic fast food restaurants since the mid '60s, but the concept was just too outlandish back then, but now that people are comfortable with automation, and had half a century's worth of technological advancement, take a look at the answer to $15 an hour. Self-checkout lanes are popping up more and more, iPads and touch screens are replacing servers at some full-service restaurants, and ordering/paying from mobile devices is becoming downright commonplace.
Really? You think automation is just "fire and forget" and the owners can soak up the profits without worrying about employing anyone?
Good luck with that.
But it's not about hard work and determination. For one, there are still tons of manual labor centered jobs that are necessary for society to function. We'll likely always need retail staff regardless of how automated retail becomes, custodial staff, construction centered manual laborers, fruit pickers, among others. Those are all typically minimum wage, but they're absolutely necessary, and most low-skill jobs are backbreaking work in high-pressure environments.
And yes, I do believe that forcing people to work for a pittance for a job that's incorrectly perceived as being low value is a punishment. And I think it unjust to view a worker as being lesser for doing a job that some believe is for lesser people. I'm sorry, but your attitudes about this are extremely frustrating to me. It seems as if you think that a person's job and position in society are a reflection of their morality and value as a human being. Do not confuse someones economic worth with their absolute worth; they are absolutely independent of one another.
You can make all of the emotional appeals you want, it doesn't change the basic economic facts, and those are what we need to deal with.
When you have jobs (like the ones you mentioned) that require no special skills, and that can be done by anyone, with little to no training, the value of those jobs will always be low, there is no changing that; whether you're a 16 year-old looking for a summer job, or a 35 year-old single mother with two kids to feed, the value of the job remains the same. It's not a company's responsibility to pay more for a job than it's worth, simply because the worker "needs it more".
If I'm wrong, then there should be nothing at all to worry about. The Government can keep mandating higher and higher wages and everything will be just peachy. Time will determine who is right, and who is wrong.
No one is arguing that the value of low skilled labor is and should be low compared to that of high skilled labor where skilled labor is in short supply. The question is what should the floor value be for labor? Even today's meager minimum wage is set to a value higher than that dictated purely by market forces. Are you suggesting there should be no floor? If so look to Bangladesh or China. Is that the kind of labor market you want? The minimum wage should not be determined by market forces only, there should be safeguards built in to ensure a decent quality of life for all workers.
Whether you like it or not- whether you agree with it or not, wages are subject to market forces, namely supply and demand. When you mandate a wage that’s higher than market value, you create an imbalance in the market that the market will correct. In this case it means that people are going to lose their jobs. When you increase the cost of wages, you increase both: the quality of labor that employers have to choose from, and the quality of labor they demand; this means that the lowest-skilled, least-educated workers (the very workers you’re claiming to want to help), are going to get priced out of the market.
If you want wages for low skill jobs to go up, then you need to reduce the surplus of workers we have in this country, and that’s all there is to it. The real unemployment rate is still over 10%, and the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in nearly 40 years; to put it plainly it’s a buyer’s market for labor right now.
I love how no one ever complains about market forces when they work in their favor, well this is the other side of the equation, and you have to take the good with the bad.
Not only are you demonstrably wrong just like the last twenty-two times people predicted doom when the minimum wage was raised, but people are trying to prevent the government from doing what we need it to do.
I'm skeptical. Increasing wages isn't going to change at all the skill levels available in the labor pool that companies can draw from. Prices will increase to offset the increased cost of labor, but consumer spending will also increase which will more than offset the escalation in prices. It's been shown that higher wages for low income workers increases spending which feeds back into economic growth. I also happen to live in an area where the minimum wage was raised to double the national average and the local economy is one of the strongest in the nation.
I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this one.
It does actually. It increases the number of people who are willing to work these jobs, meaning that employers will have their choice of a much wider field of applicants, a field that will include higher-qualified, higher-skilled workers; workers who weren't willing to do these jobs for $7.25 hr, will be willing to do them for $15 an hour.
No, it really won't.
You're talking about over $16,000 in additional revenue, per minimum wage employee, that a business would have to generate in order to simply maintain their current level of profitability. That's to say nothing of all the supervisors and assistant managers, making $10 - $15 an hour that are now going to have to be bumped up.
From where did people ever get this notion that businesses can simply generate additional revenue on demand, markets be damned?
No it hasn't. Not ever. That's an economic fallacy that was disproven over 160 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat. Raising wages does not create economic growth, it redistributes wealth. The only thing that creates economic growth is production.
I didn't say that most of the jobs are done by teens, I said they SHOULD be done by teens. Propping up a straw man as if I made a different argument is disingenuous. And I wouldn't trust the Department of Labor website you linked, since they can't seem to even calculate the actual unemployment rate.
Again, working the fry-a-lator is not a career, nor should it be an income for some trying to start a family. It's a job to get out of, not to stay in. Having a minimum wage at all is just another regulation control by big businesses to drive little businesses under. The minimum wage will rise when corporations decide that their pawns in Congress will allow it, but don't expect it to pay for a real living standard for very long, if at all. Remove the price controls and you will have teens at full employment because employers will be able to pay them at a rate that matches their labor. As for the 40 year old still making hamburgers, he might have to get a gig that requires more training, like working at a Home Depot (something a teen wouldn't be allowed to do since it requires training and access to equipment that can be dangerous).
If minimum wage actually worked, it would've solved the employment problem a long time again. Government controls don't work on business because the government is terrible at running things and big money has plenty of time to sway the rules in their favor.
It's always fun to talk about what SHOULD be, but we have to deal with what IS. And the reality is that there aren't enough jobs to go around so a lot of adults are stuck working minimum wage jobs while they struggle to make ends meet. The "free market" has never cared what people are paid and has never offered realistic solutions for social and economic problems. This is why people have repeatedly turned to the government to resolve what businesses have no incentive to correct.
That's exactly what the Roman Empire did and you can see how well that worked out. A realistic solution to the problems of this world is to stop going to the people that caused them for the answers.
That's a new one. I've heard that the Roman Empire fell because of reliance on barbarian mercenaries, lead poisoning, paganism and even because of gay marriage. I've never before heard that the Roman Empire fell because it rejected the Free Market Fairy.
It was a combination of many things, but mostly economic. Devaluing their currency to continue wars and expand the Empire. The Republic had a better balance of competing interest, but the Empire was more centralized, like all dictatorships. All the resources in Rome were eventually gobbled up to continue the empire and like the U.S., you were either politically connected businessman that supplied the endless needs of empire or you were just another chump that got taxed into oblivion.