zero shift
Banned
Why doesn't America just copy what Sweden or Australia do? They have high as hell minimum wages and do fine.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
$10.10 Minimum Wage Could Lift About 5 Million Out Of Poverty
- Thread starter Protein
- Start date
- Status
smokeandmirrors
Banned
If you are forced to work 2 or more jobs just to put a roof over your head, food on the table, and clothes on your back then I would say society has failed you already. You aren't a person anymore, just a worker drone but I guess that's the goal of suppressing wages.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Because minimum wage jobs are supposed to be punishment and/or entry level jobs.
Corporations have a lot of influence in our government, unfortunately.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
That is basically no minimum wage. Businesses choose what to pay their workers in consultation with them. It can be US$5 or it can be US$10 for a McJob. There is no legislative intervention, except laws that protect and legitimize the bargaining process.
Adjusted for cost of living, Australia's minimum wage isn't much better than the US's. Sweden has no minimum wage.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Why is basically no minimum wage? There is a particular wage rate below which no business can pay their employees without serious repercussions. In America, these repercussions are enforced by the state, in Sweden, by the relevant workers' union, but the effect is the same: businesses make sure their employees' wages don't fall below a particular level. Now, I'd actually prefer it if the minimum wage were to be decided this way (on a sector-by-sector basis and through direct negotiations rather than the government as a third-party), but this isn't feasible for a country like the United States which no longer has a trade union movement with any life to it.
I have a very strong belief that if I squeeze hard enough a beautiful white unicorn will pop out of my ass and fly me to the moon. It's good to believe things.
Please define fine. What ways are they doing better?
entremet
Member
They also employ most of the minimum wage workers. Fancy that.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
It means wages are adjusted by the labour's worth, not by law. The worker's bargaining unit wouldn't ask for $10.10 if it meant the small restaurant they worked at would become unprofitable, they would ideally adjust their wages for long term survival. They can strike but they would be hurting themselves in the long run; it takes individual realities into account. This makes it very different from a flat, un-negotiable minimum wage.
I understand that that's difficult to replicate in the US, but I'd still argue that minimum wage does almost nothing in relation to poverty. It's a terrible substitute.
CEO's make 300 times more money then they average worker. Companies are profiting billions and spending millions to buy Washington. People that work full time need government assistance to survive, money coming from your pocket. Yet there are idiots in this thread that think the minimum wage is fine. Are you guys NUTS. There will be no middle class soon if things don't change. My God some of you are brainwashed. We could all have a liveable wage if the top people only made 100 times more than us regular folk.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not particularly. The government ideally attempts to set the minimum wage at a rate roughly equivalent to the point it is as a beneficial as possible for all parties involved - exactly the same as workers' collectives. Now, you can make arguments that workers' collectives are better at recognising what the optimal rate is, but you've not really made an argument for that - there's no comparative. Both systems aim to reach the same conclusion.
The evidence is very much against you on that front. It may be true there are alternatives which are even better than the minimum wage is (although you've not told me what they are), but a world with no minimum wage is almost certainly a worse world than a world with the current minimum wage, and both are worse than a world with a somewhat higher minimum wage.
The Albatross
Member
It's not somehow, it's supply and demand. When your entry-level gas station convenient store employee suddenly gets a $2 or $3/hr raise, something pays for it. At a gas station... I guess it's the gas.
zero shift
Banned
ThatOneDude
Banned
Welcome to Canada.
Ontario - $10.25
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/labourstandards/a/minimum-wage-in-canada.htm
Ontario - $10.25
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/labourstandards/a/minimum-wage-in-canada.htm
JesseEwiak
Member
Let us know how you live through the coming apocalypse of a 1.25 Value Menu at McDonald's.
Right wing propaganda.
In the long run, increased demand from millions of low wage workers suddenly having a greater amount of money to spend will force businesses to hire to meet that demand in numbers that more than make up for any initial layoffs. The rich just want you to think that the more money you give to the dirty poors, the less valuable it becomes. Which is complete bullshit considering the biggest drag on our economy right now is lack of demand. Demand is peoples' desire and ability for some good or service. People don't lack the desire to buy stuff, they lack the ability, and the billions that companies are sitting on in bank accounts right now would be better put to use by giving it to the lower class who will actually spend it and grow the economy. Directly taxing this wealth and disbursing it in the form of tax credits and welfare programs would probably be more effective, but is politically toxic, so redirecting the wealth to the lower class through increased wages is the next best thing.
No shit. I can excuse people my age and younger who may not have been politically aware when the minimum wage was last increased to a certain extent, but anyone over 25 shouldn't be falling for the same arguments that never come true every time the minimum wage is increased.
Black Mamba
Member
Companies also eat it in their profits.
Elasticity of supplies and demand matter. Prices don't go up to the amount that pays for the minimum wage. Studies have proven this.
It's like when sales taxes are raised. Do all prices go up 1% when sales taxes go up 1%? Of course not. Companies eat some of it in the loss of profits.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Adjusted for purchasing power, that's equivalent to a United States minimum wage of approximately $7.80, so that's not really exceptional.
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
That doesn't tell me anything. $12 after how many visits, or how many purchases?
zero shift
Banned
I love it how this graph makes it seem that the US has such a high wage when in reality it has one of the lowest in the first world.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It says per year, so presumably after the average amount of visits a consumer makes in a year.
JesseEwiak
Member
You know it's bad when a right-wing source can't even find a statistic that puts 'Murica above Western Europe and/or Austrailazealand.
technically if you aren't forced to scavenge a forest or are at risk to exposure or bodily harm society ain't too bad
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Gas prices are fairly competitive. More likely you'd be paying an extra $1 for your 40.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Actually, in defence of the graph, the key point it's making is more or less right - the United States is on the lower side, yes, but it is at least reasonably close to most other North American, Western European, and Australian/New Zealand economies. That tells you something much more worrying: this isn't a localized problem.
Manmademan
Member
I love it how this graph makes it seem that the US has such a high wage when in reality it has one of the lowest in the first world.
Right away i can tell you that trying to call out the cost of living disparity across the world without acknowledging the massive cost of living disparity within the US *itself* is just flat out ridiculous.
7.25 in NYC or San Francisco is a COMPLETELY different ballgame than 7.25 in the midwest.
I can even drive 3 hours west of me from philadelphia and find cost of living cut in half or more.
Harry Dresden
Member
For the love of god. Don't threaten the Corporatocracy's bottom line.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Posters in this thread are talking about corporations like Walmart or McDonald's, but what I find is there is not much consideration given to smaller businesses that can't afford a big increase in minimum wage. I doubt they can stomach a 33% increase in wages in a year. You say that both systems aim to reach the same conclusion, but that is only a part of the equation. This legislatively set minimum wage level does not take into account the profitability of individual businesses that will be affected by a jump in wages. They also don't take into account that not everyone -should- be paid $10/hr. It's nice to pay your workers a living wage, but if that worker only produces $6/hr of profit, then chances are he won't be employed.
The better alternative is to create a better social safety net, to create better education/skills training opportunities, improve collective bargaining rights, improve gender accessibility (universal daycare). The evidence? Many provinces in Canada raise their minimum wages all the time and it's done absolutely nothing in terms of poverty. BC raises their minimum wage almost yearly, yet after 5 years of this yearly increase, it still has the highest poverty rate in the country and median wage is still stagnant.
zero shift
Banned
To be fair can't that be said about other countries as well? I imagine London is more expensive than Nottingham.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Broadly speaking, I agree with all of this. However, the political capital and effort required to achieve a raise in the minimum wage is much smaller than the political capital and effort requires to do everything else. Meanwhile, people aren't even able to make it paycheck to paycheck. It's only a band-aid for a much larger problem, and that problem needs to be addressed, but federally mandating a minimum wage at a particular level with a built-in mechanism to adjust to inflation is something that will temporarily help more people than it hurts, and give society the necessary breathing space to have a proper debate around all of the other issues at stake.
So it's okay for struggling workers to not be able to make ends meet, but not okay for struggling businesses?
ElectricBlue187
Member
Sure as fuck ain't coming out of Exxon or BP's pockets
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
As both a self employed worker and a small business owner (one that failed to launch several companies before, no less), that line of thinking bothers me to no end. It's the rotten seed that ruins our countries from the inside.
We've really been brainwashed into thinking that business are more important to society than the workers that propel them. If we are in this together, we really are in this together.
King Cobra
Banned
The thing is my beliefs have gotten me somewhere, unlike those who wasting their time over 3 dollars. So no matter how witty you may think you are it wont replace the fact that you wont get anywhere unless you put in effort.
Rookje
Member
People still hire young kids to do jobs?
All the businesses here in california hire illegals to do those jobs. They're easier to manipulate -- don't have to worry about them skipping out from work early for a hot date, or surfing instagram on their phones, or having to have mom and dad call up when the kid feels like they're undervalued at the job. Not to mention they're cheaper.
Unless the atmosphere benefits from the patron being immersed in the fantasy of the youth working real jobs (like In and Out or shopping mall clerks), its usually illegals.
Black Mamba
Member
Polls show that 2/3 of small businesses support a minimum wage hike. Only 15% of small businesses pay a minimum wage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/small-businesses-back-minimum-wage-hike/
You Are Viewtiful
Member
From what I've seen, it takes a high amount of political capital to raise the minimum wage by an amount that isn't negligible in terms of poverty reduction. $7.25 to $10.10 overnight would be quite a sting. Increase in minimum wage negatively impacts small businesses, unskilled youth workers, and full-time minimum wage workers. Small businesses would see their profits go down, young and unskilled workers will find themselves outdone by older workers with more experience, if they're being paid the same wage.
The alternative in this scenario is that the struggling businesses goes out of business, and the workers has no job to go to, so he struggles even more. Also, the biggest chunk of minimum wage earners are indeed younger workers or people who are earning only supplementary income, they are not always struggling. Regardless, I've never said I think workers should continue to struggle. I simply believe that minimum wage is an ineffective way of addressing that struggle.
1/3rd is a lot of businsses that employ a lot of people. I would like to hear why they are against an increase in minimum wage, especially if those reasons include inability to pay.
JesseEwiak
Member
Probably because most small business owners understand that frankly, if you can't pay your workers a decent wage, maybe you shouldn't open a business.
Black Mamba
Member
It's weird how what you say doesn't actually play out according to all the studies. You believe something without any actual evidence (and evidence quite to the contrary).
A minimum wage hikes helps low wage workers and small businesses on the whole. Sure, like with any policy there will be some losers, but by a wide margin most would benefit.
because greed and inability to understand how things work.
Why is Wal-Mart against minimum wage hikes? Are they not going to still profit handsomely? Quite honestly, they just want to keep wages suppressed because it makes it harder for their workers to buy goods from small businesses.
I always felt the minimum wage argument both had valid arguments on both sides - providing better income for already increasing prices and making sure businesses don't try to cut workers to make up costs while making sure we don't remove the first rungs for people getting into the workforce - so I'm surprised how little both sides just fight one another instead of trying to find middle ground:
We could provide scaling wages determined by age, similar to how Australia does it. People who are younger have a lower minimum wage so businesses will be more likely to hire them and the kids entering the workforce won't be hit by the harmful affects of raising the minimum wage. Further, older workers on minimum wage will be more likely to get income that can do them well and businesses that do think of cuts will make less overall, which means less work per worker.
How much to make the minimum wage for each group? Pfft, I dunno.
I would imagine it's competition for employees, actually.
We could provide scaling wages determined by age, similar to how Australia does it. People who are younger have a lower minimum wage so businesses will be more likely to hire them and the kids entering the workforce won't be hit by the harmful affects of raising the minimum wage. Further, older workers on minimum wage will be more likely to get income that can do them well and businesses that do think of cuts will make less overall, which means less work per worker.
How much to make the minimum wage for each group? Pfft, I dunno.
I would imagine it's competition for employees, actually.
King Cobra
Banned
Are you being serious? Sweden has a pop. of ~9 million and Aus. ~21 million. What works for them may not work as efficiently for a nation of over 300 million.
CyclopsRock
Member
This is all fair enough, but to assume labour "value" acts in the way you state rather than the way I do is to put it apart from every other thing we exchange money for, with only a few tiny exceptions (and most of those are deemed harmful and basically shit). A $150,000 Porsche isn't 5x faster or efficient than a $30,000 Honda Civic. One doesn't pay the same for a 3 bedroom house in Manhattan as they do in Bumfuck, Nowhere. One doesn't expect to pay the same price for a generic white mug as for one with Disneyland emblazened on the side (guess what's on my desk right now - yup, my Disneyland mug, as well as my Porsche keys attached to my Manhattan penthouse keyring). The price we pay for all of these things is a fairly complicated combination of factors, but it ultimately comes down to how many people there are that want to buy a particular product and how much they're willing to spend on it.
Now I appreciate there's a difference - no one needs a Porsche, or a 3 bedroom house in Manhattan (though of course, they need to live somewhere) and, if push comes to shove, one can live without a Disneyland mug. As such, perhaps we're more happy to see our property, car and mug prices left to the whims of the market, in much the same way that we don't let milk prices climb, in most countries. And there's a coercive element to work, insomuch as one needs to work (and it's also true that employers need employees, so it's not entirely one sided, though I concede that employers are more capable of winning a game of brinkmanship there). And this is one of the reasons why - as I've stated a few times - I do support a minimum wage. But I don't think that means it's justified by being an accurate reflection of value. Why?
Well, firstly, as said, we treat every other product except maybe milk and a few other weird things like this. Labour is also a product. Why would it arrive at its valuation any differently? Secondly, the market based approach rather than the productivity based approach (or otherwise any sort of top-down approach, which is what a productivity based approach is) is the only which two adults can come to a free and consenting agreement. As said above, indirect coercion can happen, but "coercion" in this sense is just a proxy for "stuff that defines my price" - one's need for shelter trumps ones desire not to work at McDonalds for $7 an hour, etc. But we're talking about accurately ascertaining value here, not a correct path (as I've said, I support a minimum wage).
Everything you've said is true, but that doesn't ultimately change anything - if instead of your example above of wages, we talk about the aforementioned Porsche - let's say it costs $40,000 to produce it, and they typically sell it for $150,000. Theoretically, their "willingness" price is $40,000.01 - they still make money by selling it. Ferrari comes out, and they release a car that's comparable, and only costs $100,000. No one wants to buy the Porsche anymore. How do we define it's worth - it's value? Well, clearly it's not $150,000, because no one wants to buy it. But clearly it's not $40,000.01, even if theoretically - if everything goes downhill and Porsche are forced to liquidate all their stock immediately and that's the highest price they can get - they'd still make a profit. Maybe they reduce their price to $90k and start to sell again. That number ($40,000.01) wouldn't become the acknowledged "value" until such a time as they are forced to sell it for that. This is how our markets for consumer products (and houses and rent and most things that aren't drilled out of the ground) value is determined, and AFAIK no one is clamouring for maximum pricing on cars.
And the same is true for Labour. Yeah, McDonalds could hire your man for $14.99 an hour and still make a cent of profit an hour. But until such a time as that's actually what's happening - because Ferrari are hiring people at $14.98 an hour to make all their selling-like-hotcake $100k cars - then it's all theoretical. McDonalds aren't paying it, and nor is anyone else.
In other words, labour is like any other product. If we flip it around, it makes more sense, I think: When I go to work, I make profit. I earn more money from my employer than I need to operate a healthy and functioning life. I can afford a house, some heating, and reasonable expenses to live a social life (ie fucking loads of booze). But I earn more than that. Some I put into savings. Some I spend on prostitutes (something I'd arguably like to put in the "necessity" column but the sake of ease here, shan't), some I spend on gadgets I don't need but that make me happy. But if my monthly outgoings for the things I require are £1,200, then my "willingness" price is £1,200.01 a month - is that my value? Or is my value the amount above this that I can actually command from employers? If the former, why the discrepancy? Does it purely come down to the power balance between employers and employees? Because that seems like a problem for public policy and one in which the minimum wage can help solve - it doesn't seem like it should make a different on our more or less irrelevant, philosophical ideas of what "value" is.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I'm not arguing for Walmart, I supported DC's attempt to raise Walmart's minimum wage to $12 since they have a history of abruptly closing down their unionized stores here in Canada and don't show much interest in collective bargaining. I'm more concerned about small businesses, the people working in them, and younger workers.
Good thing the minimum wage isn't $7.25 in either NYC or San Francisco.
I find it VERY hard to believe that Australia's cost of living is any higher than America's, on average. And certainly not in, say, their top 5 cities versus our top 5 cities. And yet people in our top 5 cities still get paid less than half of Australia's minimum wage.
CyclopsRock
Member
It's actually insane in the large Australian cities. Perhaps not quite San Fran/NYC expensive, but honestly not far off.
- Status