The more I've been thinking about minimum wage, as its been in the news, the more I'm convinced we should be talking about Welfare at the same time. They're effectively two sides of the same coin.
Welfare is set up because it has been determined that a certain threshold is needed for an American citizen to live a decent enough life, but the fact that this is not tied to minimum wage somehow creates an interesting effect. What we see is that many employers, Walmart in particular has been in the news for this, use Welfare programs as effective subsidies to their employee wages. Instead of paying their employees a living wage, they pay them a different amount and let the government (and ultimately taxpayers) foot the rest of the bill.
I'm personally of the opinion that minimum wage should be set such that a single parent (with one child) is ineligible for at least the majority of welfare benefits if they are working full time. The current cutoff for SNAP (food stamps) is $1705/month for a 2 person household, which comes out to about $10.65/hour at 40 hours a week. At 30 hours/week, the minimum to be full time for ACA, that's about $14.20. And that's just one program. Two people earning minimum wage and a single child at 40 hours/week get a little over $200/month from the EITC. A single parent making $7.50/hour is getting $275/month, almost an additional 25% of their salary.
Without tying these programs together, we create this weird divide. What exactly is minimum wage for, if not to guarantee a living wage? Many of these people have been making $15+/hour already, except that the tax payers were footing the rest of that bill.
That's an excellent point. The issue should be framed as follows: Who is responsible for paying the cost delta between minimum wage and a living wage; should it be the government aka the taxpayers, or should it be the companies that employ them? I'm certain a lot more conservatives would get on board the minimum wage movement if it came with the promise that the welfare system would be greatly reduced in size.
Your points are quite spot on. But I think just questioning the status quo is a good place to start. We can't find solutions to these real serious questions until we examine the whole issue.
I think tying Welfare to Minimum Wage is a great idea, it accomplishes a litany of issues all on its own. But the fact remains- if you're spending 40hrs a week at a place, you deserve a living wage. There are certainly questions to answer before such a drastic step can be taken world wide, like what about a 'snot-nosed kid' at his first job? Does s/he deserve a 'living wage' if they are just going home to life off Mum and Dad? I should think not, unless they are supporting someone & can prove it.
For me it boils down to this- If your company is making Billions in profits and still relying on government subsidies to pay their employees, well guess what? That's wrong no matter how you slice it. It needs to be brought to an end immediately. I don't mind my tax money going to help my fellow man. But I do mind when my tax money is lining the pockets of the Wal-twats, the McDouches and their ilk.
I think its easy to address the 'snot nosed kid' angle; workers that are minors and are claimed as a dependent of someone else's tax return have a lower minimum wage than someone who is not a dependent.
Edit: Skolor raises a good point below. Also in hindsight having a two-tiered minimum wage would just encourage employers to favor minors and dependents over others, which would undermine the whole point of increasing the minimum wage.
A comparable problem: I work as an engineer, and I'm married. Because of my status outside work, I get paid more than the guy who sits beside me. My employer ends up paying (slightly) more for my healthcare costs, due to also paying for my partner. On the other hand, I get paid a fair bit less than the guy a few offices down, because he is not only married but also has a couple kids. Its not a huge difference, compared to our total salary, but it's my understanding it gets closed $1/hour difference between a single guy and someone who has a bunch of kids. If we're all doing the same work, and performing the same, why is one person getting paid more for something they choose to do outside of work?
I see the issue of dependent workers the same. If two people do the same work, with the same level of performance and experience, they should get paid (roughly) the same. Keep in mind, at current minimum wage, a difference of $50/week is a 17% increase in pay, if full time. That's a pretty big difference if the only change is your parent's tax status.
The more I've been thinking about minimum wage, as its been in the news, the more I'm convinced we should be talking about Welfare at the same time. They're effectively two sides of the same coin.
Welfare is set up because it has been determined that a certain threshold is needed for an American citizen to live a decent enough life, but the fact that this is not tied to minimum wage somehow creates an interesting effect. What we see is that many employers, Walmart in particular has been in the news for this, use Welfare programs as effective subsidies to their employee wages. Instead of paying their employees a living wage, they pay them a different amount and let the government (and ultimately taxpayers) foot the rest of the bill.
I'm personally of the opinion that minimum wage should be set such that a single parent (with one child) is ineligible for at least the majority of welfare benefits if they are working full time. The current cutoff for SNAP (food stamps) is $1705/month for a 2 person household, which comes out to about $10.65/hour at 40 hours a week. At 30 hours/week, the minimum to be full time for ACA, that's about $14.20. And that's just one program. Two people earning minimum wage and a single child at 40 hours/week get a little over $200/month from the EITC. A single parent making $7.50/hour is getting $275/month, almost an additional 25% of their salary.
Without tying these programs together, we create this weird divide. What exactly is minimum wage for, if not to guarantee a living wage? Many of these people have been making $15+/hour already, except that the tax payers were footing the rest of that bill.
That's an excellent point. The issue should be framed as follows: Who is responsible for paying the cost delta between minimum wage and a living wage; should it be the government aka the taxpayers, or should it be the companies that employ them? I'm certain a lot more conservatives would get on board the minimum wage movement if it came with the promise that the welfare system would be greatly reduced in size.
Your points are quite spot on. But I think just questioning the status quo is a good place to start. We can't find solutions to these real serious questions until we examine the whole issue.
I think tying Welfare to Minimum Wage is a great idea, it accomplishes a litany of issues all on its own. But the fact remains- if you're spending 40hrs a week at a place, you deserve a living wage. There are certainly questions to answer before such a drastic step can be taken world wide, like what about a 'snot-nosed kid' at his first job? Does s/he deserve a 'living wage' if they are just going home to life off Mum and Dad? I should think not, unless they are supporting someone & can prove it. For me it boils down to this- If your company is making Billions in profits and still relying on government subsidies to pay their employees, well guess what? That's wrong no matter how you slice it. It needs to be brought to an end immediately. I don't mind my tax money going to help my fellow man. But I do mind when my tax money is lining the pockets of the Wal-twats, the McDouches and their ilk.
I think its easy to address the 'snot nosed kid' angle; workers that are minors and are claimed as a dependent of someone else's tax return have a lower minimum wage than someone who is not a dependent.
Edit: Skolor raises a good point below. Also in hindsight having a two-tiered minimum wage would just encourage employers to favor minors and dependents over others, which would undermine the whole point of increasing the minimum wage.
Is that really a problem that needs to be solved?
A comparable problem: I work as an engineer, and I'm married. Because of my status outside work, I get paid more than the guy who sits beside me. My employer ends up paying (slightly) more for my healthcare costs, due to also paying for my partner. On the other hand, I get paid a fair bit less than the guy a few offices down, because he is not only married but also has a couple kids. Its not a huge difference, compared to our total salary, but it's my understanding it gets closed $1/hour difference between a single guy and someone who has a bunch of kids. If we're all doing the same work, and performing the same, why is one person getting paid more for something they choose to do outside of work?
I see the issue of dependent workers the same. If two people do the same work, with the same level of performance and experience, they should get paid (roughly) the same. Keep in mind, at current minimum wage, a difference of $50/week is a 17% increase in pay, if full time. That's a pretty big difference if the only change is your parent's tax status.