Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

This is a tautology that is often repeated as a fact in this thread and threads like it. But just because you want it to be, doesn't make it true. As much as I'd love for all jobs to pay a living wage, all jobs may not be worth a living wage, either due to the value created or due to competition. That's just reality. If the job doesn't pay enough, people shouldn't take the job. Then employers will offer more if they need the job filled.

Or does the "market forces will sort it out" argument only apply when it supports your desired conclusions (like when it's argued that other salaries will rise ITT)?

It's quite obvious that the market doesn't force companies to give living wages, I mean, this is why we have a minimum wage to begin with.

And saying people should not taking those jobs misses the point that for many people, it's either that, or living in the street (or as Johann Most famously put it "It is the lash of hunger which compels the poor man to submit. In order to live he must sell - 'voluntarily' sell - himself every day and hour").

The fact remains that it is possible to create a system where working a full time job guarantees to you a dignified living, minimum wage is not the only way btw, but it is an achievable goal. We currently chose to not do that.

 

[UFO]

Whether you're a greeter or working a more skilled job, if a company thinks you are valuable enough to pay, that company should be required to pay you a wage that doesn't result in you staying in crushing poverty.

This is so completely false.

If not then I guess all the kids who worked as paperboys got screwed over.

There is zero correlation between the amount of value a job needs to have in order to exist, and the the amount an average adult needs in order to sustain livelihood. ZERO CORRELATION. ZERO.

 

[ZackieChan]

It's quite obvious that the market doesn't force companies to give living wages, I mean, this is why we have a minimum wage to begin with.

And saying people should not taking those jobs misses the point that for many people, it's either that, or living in the street (or as Johann Most famously put it "It is the lash of hunger which compels the poor man to submit. In order to live he must sell - 'voluntarily' sell - himself every day and hour").

The fact remains that it is possible to create a system where working a full time job guarantees to you a dignified living, minimum wage is not the only way btw, but it is an achievable goal. We currently chose to not do that.

How does this square with the oft-repeated argument here that if a business can't afford to pay employees a high enough wage, the business doesn't deserve to exist? It seems like these ideas only seem to apply when they go against the business, as if the business is some mythical creature, rather than made up of human beings who also need to make a living. I know that most posters think that "businesses" are all giant companies, but the ones that couldn't sustain the higher wage are mostly small businesses and franchisees. They don't "deserve" to exist, but everybody deserves a job with a living wage.

I'd love to see everyone thrive, but sometimes that's just not possible and you as an individual need to do something different in order to progress and make more money. I know that's an unpopular opinion here, since it seems like 99% of gaffers are serial employees. And in many ways I'm just arguing against these entrenched ideas - I'm not the horrible person most posters probably think I am. As I said, I'd love for all jobs and businesses to be making more money!

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is so completely false.

If not then I guess all the kids who worked as paperboys got screwed over.

There is zero correlation between the amount of value a job needs to have in order to exist, and the the amount an average adult needs in order to sustain livelihood. ZERO CORRELATION. ZERO.

People deserve to live with dignity and stability

don't blame low wage workers, blame the people who hoard wealth and everyone's expense

 

[UFO]

The fact remains that it is possible to create a system where working a full time job guarantees to you a dignified living, minimum wage is not the only way btw, but it is an achievable goal. We currently chose to not do that.

We chose not to but it's not because of a too low minimum wage. It's because there's no accountability on corporate greed. We live in a world were companies don't need to play fair to fill jobs, they can always find someone more desperate willing to work for less. If not in America- overseas. Look at tech support as an example. Obviously something needs to change, but Staccat0 explained very simply way a $15 national minimum wage is foolish.

People deserve to live with dignity and stability

don't blame low wage workers, blame the people who hoard wealth and everyone's expense

I fucking agree.

 

[SMattera]

People deserve to live with dignity and stability

don't blame low wage workers, blame the people who hoard wealth and everyone's expense

You cannot hoard wealth. This an oft repeated fallacy but it makes no sense.

Let's say Bill Gates converts all his wealth to cash (99% of it is invested in productive businesses that are doing things and employing people, etc) and then sticks it under his mattress. Everyone else's money would be worth more.

 

[TaterTots]

I've worked for minimum wage from the age of 16 to 26. I chose to get out of that situation and pursue more. It was not easy, but I'm finally at a point at the age of 32 years that I'm on a career path. My question is, If minimum wage is raised to $15.00 per hour, will I get a raise to compensate for my skills? This is not a purity test battle. I'm just curious how it would all balance out.

 

[Chichikov]

How does this square with the oft-repeated argument here that if a business can't afford to pay employees a high enough wage, the business doesn't deserve to exist? It seems like these ideas only seem to apply when they go against the business, as if the business is some mythical creature, rather than made up of human beings who also need to make a living. I know that most posters think that "businesses" are all giant companies, but the ones that couldn't sustain the higher wage are mostly small businesses and franchisees. They don't "deserve" to exist, but everybody deserves a job with a living wage.

First of all, you're changing your argument from "people will not take low paying jobs" to business has the right to make money.
But that argument is flawed too, for example, most of us would agree that if the only way for a business to make profits is to physically beat up their workforce or dump toxic waste in our drinking water then they have no right to exist, right?
Now I'm not saying those cases are the same, this is merely to point out that in general, we don't consider the right of a business to make money to override every single public interest, so if you want to justify why it's good to let employers pay non-living wages, you can't really do it in the abstract.

I'd love to see everyone thrive, but sometimes that's just not possible and you as an individual need to do something different in order to progress and make more money. I know that's an unpopular opinion here, since it seems like 99% of gaffers are serial employees. And in many ways I'm just arguing against these entrenched ideas - I'm not the horrible person most posters probably think I am. As I said, I'd love for all jobs and businesses to be making more money!

And now you're changing your argument from this being a bad thing to being a good but impossible thing, do try to stick to a single argument.
Fact is many countries do achieve that (or at least achieve that to much higher degree than the US), and considering that the US is the richest country in the history of the world, you got to back that shit with some hard evidence.

 

[ZackieChan]

First of all, you're changing your argument from "people will not take low paying jobs" to business has the right to make money.
But that argument is flawed too, for example, most of us would agree that if the only way for a business to make profits is to physically beat up their workforce or dump toxic waste in our drinking water then they have no right to exist, right?
Now I'm not saying those cases are the same, this is merely to point out that in general, we don't consider the right of a business to make money to override every single public interest, so if you want to justify why it's good to let employers pay non-living wages, you can't really do it in the abstract.

And now you're changing your argument from this being a bad thing to being a good but impossible thing, do try to stick to a single argument.
Fact is many countries do achieve that (or at least achieve that to much higher degree than the US), and considering that the US is the richest country in the history of the world, you got to back that shit with some hard evidence.

I never argues that people wouldn't take the low paying jobs. I was arguing that 1) there's no axiom that jobs should inherently pay enough to sustain someone on their own, and 2) that if this was a problem, workers would not take the jobs. Obviously it's not a big enough problem, as people take minimum wage jobs all the time.

So no evidence is required when people make the assertion that all jobs should provide a living wage? Even if you have a quote from the person who came up with the minimum wage, that's not evidence any more than the creator of "gif" saying how he thinks it should be pronounced.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I never argues that people wouldn't take the low paying jobs. I was arguing that 1) there's no axiom that jobs should inherently pay enough to sustain someone on their own,

I view the UHDR as axiomatically true--true in the sense that we are compelled to build a world that reflects it:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This mandates that we take active, positive measures to create human dignity where it does not exist. A living wage does this. As does a basic income. As do cradle-to-grave social safety nets. As does tipping and charity.

 

[TaterTots]

Frankly repulsive

It's not repulsive. The person you quoted is a welder. Do you know what that is and the risk involved? I'd say a welder that learned their skill with variable risk deserves more pay than someone that says, "hello." Obviously, this is not a popular opinion on GAF, but lets be honest. A lot of people feel this way.

 

[the1npc]

It's not repulsive. The person you quoted is a welder. Do you know what that is and the risk involved? I'd say a welder that learned their skill with variable risk deserves more pay than someone that says, "hello." Obviously, this is not a popular opinion on GAF, but lets be honest. A lot of people feel this way.

No one is saying they should be payed the same
...

 

[Chichikov]

I never argues that people wouldn't take the low paying jobs. I was arguing that 1) there's no axiom that jobs should inherently pay enough to sustain someone on their own, and 2) that if this was a problem, workers would not take the jobs. Obviously it's not a big enough problem, as people take minimum wage jobs all the time.

There isn't an "axiom" that we should not have slavery or discriminate based on race either, it's choices we made because we think they're right.
And yeah, not making a living wage is not as big of a problem as being homeless, that's really your bar?
I mean, if I had to choose to between being a homeless and having a job where my boss get to physically beat me I'd go with the latter, but boy, I'm happy we live in a society where that is illegal.

And again, I'm not saying a non-living wage is the same as physical violence or slavery, I'm saying that we don't generally accept anything that people would chose to do rather than being homeless to be something that is morally justified or not a problem.

I mean, do you really want me to go through the list of things that people are willing to do to survive and ask you if you think they're not a problem?

So no evidence is required when people make the assertion that all jobs should provide a living wage? Even if you have a quote from the person who came up with the minimum wage, that's not evidence any more than the creator of "gif" saying how he thinks it should be pronounced.

Again, it's a moral call, what evidence you want?
You're saying (among many thing, FFS man, pick an argument and stick with it) that it's impossible to do, I think that assertion requires evidence, and while I'm not sure what quote you're talking about, generally, an appeal to authority is not the best argument in the world.

 

[SMattera]

Define a living wage. Be specific. Don't use weasel words like "dignity" etc.

 

[ZOONAMI]

Define a living wage. Be specific. Don't use weasel words like "dignity" etc.

A living wage is around $15/hr, hence the push for it.

It's still under $30k full time hours so I don't understand why people are so against it.

Even 2 people working that is pretty much right at the median income.

 

[SMattera]

A living wage is around $15/hr, hence the push for it.

It's still under $30k full time hours so I don't understand why people are so against it.

How did you get to around $15/hr? What's that figure based on?

 

[ZOONAMI]

How did you get to around $15/hr? What's that figure based on?

See the rest of my post.

Do you think a household doesn't deserve to earn the median income, which is already well behind the inflation rate for median income from 1978?

Wage stagnation is a real thing. Less resources for families despite increasing costs is reason enough.

 

[TarNaru33]

Not to be insensitive but I have to agree. The minimum wage was never something you could live off of into your late 20's, it was something you got in high school thru college to support yourself until you got a better job. Where you lived with friends and shared rent and built your skillset for something that pays better.

The bold is nowhere close to being true, and the government not adjusting the minimum wage after its establishment is not a good example for what it was not meant to be. That is you throwing your own opinion and thoughts on it due to the government's irresponsibility.

The main issue is just like you, there are people touting this line and keeping it from rising like it should have.

This is a tautology that is often repeated as a fact in this thread and threads like it. But just because you want it to be, doesn't make it true. As much as I'd love for all jobs to pay a living wage, all jobs may not be worth a living wage, either due to the value created or due to competition. That's just reality. If the job doesn't pay enough, people shouldn't take the job. Then employers will offer more if they need the job filled.

Or does the "market forces will sort it out" argument only apply when it supports your desired conclusions (like when it's argued that other salaries will rise ITT)?

With this being said, you are arguing that a company should be able to pay what they want, you would be advocating to abolish the minimum wage. Whether you agree or not, all jobs should pay a livable wage, if it can't then it simply shouldn't exist. Companies should not be seen as people just because it is comprised of people.

If you're physically or mentally handicapped and greeter is all you can do to work then the government should step in and fill the gap between your wage and expenses.

If you're not handicapped and being a greeter is not enough to keep you out of poverty then I have no sympathy. That's your choice.

No, if you are working a full-time job, then it doesn't matter what you are doing. Pay should be livable, even if it's a greeter. If the job feel like hiring a greeter is not worth the increase in expense, then it simply shouldn't do so.

Again, it's a moral call, what evidence you want?
You're saying (among many thing, FFS man, pick an argument and stick with it) that it's impossible to do, I think that assertion requires evidence, and while I'm not sure what quote you're talking about, generally, an appeal to authority is not the best argument in the world.

To be honest, I am not sure if he himself know what he is arguing about.

See the rest of my post.

Do you think a household doesn't deserve to earn the median income, which is already well behind the inflation rate for median income from 1978?

Wage stagnation is a real thing. Less resources for families despite increasing costs is reason enough.

Unfortunately, U.S's median income is bloated due to the concentration of wealth at the top 1%. I agree though, most people should be somewhere near that median income if they are full-time workers.

 

[Fuzzery]

Minimum wage in San Francisco needs to be $160000, but even that's not enough for some people to make ends meet

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I don't really get it. If jobs shouldn't have to pay a minimum wage then should people just work those jobs just because? If you are going to spend 40 hours of your life being a slave for money, shouldn't that money be enough for you to actually survive? Otherwise what is the incentive? If everyone who couldnt survive off their salaries just said fuck it and stopped working, would those companies just give in and claim bankruptcy? I highly doubt it.

Unfortunately, U.S's median income is bloated due to the concentration of wealth at the top 1%. I agree though, most people should be somewhere near that median income if they are full-time workers.

I agree with most of your points. But just for reference, a mean income would be bloated by the 1%. The top earners can't bloat a median because it is the center point of all workers. If you have 11 people it wouldnt matter if the top earner made 1 million or 1 billion. The median wouldn't change. Only pointing this out because it's often misinterpreted in these types of discussions and the distinction is important.

 

[ant_]

I don't really get it. If jobs shouldn't have to pay a minimum wage then should people just work those jobs just because? If you are going to spend 40 hours of your life being a slave for money, shouldn't that money be enough for you to actually survive? Otherwise what is the incentive?

A job is not slavery. This falsehood has been tossed around a few times in here. Jobs are mutual contracts. You are voluntarily entering a position in which you exchange your labor for the wages provided. You are free to leave that contract at any time and pursue other contracts.

I'm still waiting for someone to contend with the racist origins of the minimum wage law & the fact that the minimum wage does nothing but price low-skilled individuals out of the market - which most negatively effects the poorest of our communities. You can hear Milton Friedman discuss the topic for the quickest explanation.

 

[poppedcollar69]

I'm still waiting for someone to contend with the racist origins of the minimum wage law & the fact that the minimum wage does nothing but price low-skilled individuals out of the market - which most negatively effects the poorest of our communities. You can hear Milton Friedman discuss the topic for the quickest explanation.

For the first part, that's irrelevant, and shame on you for self servingly trying to bring it into this discourse

For the second part, that's the most tired, played out argument of all time. The net benefits of the minimum wage far, far, fucking far outweigh the few casualties that may come from it. And we have a social safety net to care for those, or we ought to

Third, fuck Milton Friedman

 

[Gotdatmoney]

A job is not slavery. This falsehood has been tossed around a few times in here.

Jobs are mutual contracts. You are voluntarily entering a position in which you exchange your labor for the wages provided. You are free to leave that contract at any time and pursue other contracts.

I'm still waiting for someone to contend with the racist origins of the minimum wage law & the fact that the minimum wage does nothing but price low-skilled individuals out of the market - which most negatively effects the poorest of our communities.

You can hear Milton Friedman discuss the topic for the quickest explanation.

It's obviously not fucking slavery. If it was slavery they wouldnt pay you at all. :/ You know what I meant so dont do this stupid semantics shit.

Jobs are contracts that are a necessity because we as a we society have literally based survival on having a job. Your social standings, you ability to have food and shelter, your ability to have any frivilous enjoyments, those are all based on money and you get money by working. If you didn't need to work to do this would we have all these people looking for jobs, wondering how they are going to survive?

Don't play stupid on this. The social realities at hand make getting a job a necessity, not a choice in this climate. And so you cannot pretend that "oh you have a choice, you don't have to enter the contract". Oh and what is the other option? Everyone goes on welfare? We make bows and arrows and find forests with some deer and build shelters on the side (as if that property also wont be owned by someone).

If there was no minimum wage at all you think poor people would not be priced out of the market? If at the current minimum wage people can barely get by, what is the actual logic that discarding it would fix anything? And of course raising minimum wage will displace some of the working class as the jobs they are in don't have proper models for support (basically they only work if you can pay the bare minimum to make a bare minimum margin) but the increased spending power of the working class will counteract that. And companies that fail will leave markets open for companies with more sustainable models who will have to hire more people to handle the increased sales volume once they can't make anymore efficiency gains.

 

[Absinthe]

The bold is nowhere close to being true, and the government not adjusting the minimum wage after its establishment is not a good example for what it was not meant to be. That is you throwing your own opinion and thoughts on it due to the government's irresponsibility.

The main issue is just like you, there are people touting this line and keeping it from rising like it should have.

And so we disagree but it's not just an opinion it is also a fact. In truth it's not enough to raise a family on and it's my opinion and that of the majority of America that it's not intended as such.

You having an opposite opinion than I is just that. An opposite opinion. There is no fact in what you said stating that "people touting the line" are the problem.

Expecting an individual to better themselves by starting at the bottom is life and applies to everything we do starting with crawling, to walking, to education at a very young age. The same mantra continues in a work environment when starting at the bottom for a job. You should never stay there, that's why it's the beginning. If you choose to not advance that's on you, we should not expect the government to come to ones aid because they could not apply themselves and learn and develop a valuable skill set unless they have some sort of disability.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the minimum wage should stay the same, in fact, most wages have been stagnant compared to the cost of living, but I do not agree that a minimum wage should be enough to support a family nore is that its intention.

 

[Chichikov]

A job is not slavery. This falsehood has been tossed around a few times in here. Jobs are mutual contracts. You are voluntarily entering a position in which you exchange your labor for the wages provided. You are free to leave that contract at any time and pursue other contracts.

Again, if your options are accepting such jobs or being homeless (which is the case to many people) it might not be slavery, but it's not exactly a willing exchange either. And by the way, that asymmetry is exactly why we have minimum wage in the first place, remember, before that the general consensus among many employers was that if there are people applying for a job, it means that the wage is too high. And from a pure economic perspective, they're not wrong, but that also means that the median wage in the US is currently too high.

I'm still waiting for someone to contend with the racist origins of the minimum wage law & the fact that the minimum wage does nothing but price low-skilled individuals out of the market - which most negatively effects the poorest of our communities. You can hear Milton Friedman discuss the topic for the quickest explanation.

Women suffrage has a much more problematic history when it comes to racism, and yet no one would claim that's a reason to not let women to vote. It's a silly argument and that's probably the reason no one is engaging you on it.

 

[poppedcollar69]

Expecting an individual to better themselves by starting at the bottom is life and applies to everything we do starting with crawling, to walking, to education at a very young age. The same mantra continues in a work environment when starting at the bottom for a job. You should never stay there, that's why it's the beginning. If you choose to not advance that's on you, we should not expect the government to come to ones aid because they could not apply themselves and learn and develop a valuable skill set unless they have some sort of disability.

If your personal experiences match up with this idealized fantasy you've just described, and these are your attitudes, well, then, you just have no appreciation for how lucky & fortunate you have been

 

[ant_]

For the first part, that's irrelevant, and shame on you for self servingly trying to bring it into this discourse

For the second part, that's the most tired, played out argument of all time. The net benefits of the minimum wage far, far, fucking far outweigh the few casualties that may come from it. And we have a social safety net to care for those, or we ought to

Third, fuck Milton Friedman

1) How exactly it is irrelevant? It is the direct outcome of the minimum wage. If you want to make an argument that it's not, I encourage you. But don't call things "irrelevant" because they make the realities of the minimum wage hard.

2a) It's an cost-benefits analysis, I agree with you. A rise in minimum wage will naturally cause a rise in unemployment. I disagree with your characterization of "a few casualties." I think it's interesting how you attempt to take the moral high ground and then discount the "few casualties"

2b) A social safety net can benefit low wage workers, too. If you eliminated the minimum wage you could still have a thresh hold of benefit. Then people can work, gain labor skills, and have their wages subsidized by the government to raise them to a standard of living.

3) This ad hominem attack pretty much sums up the basis of your entire argument. Most who disagree with Milton Friedman can still respect the man.

Again, if your options are accepting such jobs or being homeless (which is the case to many people) it might not be slavery, but it's not exactly a willing exchange either. And by the way, that asymmetry is exactly why we have minimum wage in the first place, remember, before that the general consensus among many employers was that if there are people applying for a job, it means that the wage is too high. And from a pure economic perspective, they're not wrong, but that also means that the median wage in the US is currently too high.

Women suffrage has a much more problematic history when it comes to racism, and yet no one would claim that's a reason to not let women to vote. It's a silly argument and that's probably the reason no one is engaging you on it.

So, in the minimum wage alternative, if you're not skilled enough for the job you must be unemployed? Low-skilled workers should still have the opportunity to work.

Make the analogy, that's fine. But can you argue that the minimum wage law did not have the effects intended? The employment rate among those with low-education is abysmal. The race-unemployment gap can be shown to have appeared in 1940-1960. Growing up in a low-income neighborhood with a poor quality public education does not properly qualify you to enter the job market. Especially if the wages are raised to $15 an hour. How is one supposed to enter the job market, gain skills, and rise in a labor market?

Go to college? Take out a loan? This is a reality for most middle-income families. Not the poor.

 

[Vanillalite]

And so we disagree but it's not just an opinion it is also a fact. In truth it's not enough to raise a family on and it's my opinion and that of the majority of America that it's not intended as such.

You having an opposite opinion than I is just that. An opposite opinion. There is no fact in what you said stating that "people touting the line" are the problem.

Expecting an individual to better themselves by starting at the bottom is life and applies to everything we do starting with crawling, to walking, to education at a very young age. The same mantra continues in a work environment when starting at the bottom for a job. You should never stay there, that's why it's the beginning. If you choose to not advance that's on you, we should not expect the government to come to ones aid because they could not apply themselves and learn and develop a valuable skill set unless they have some sort of disability.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the minimum wage should stay the same, in fact, most wages have been stagnant compared to the cost of living, but I do not agree that a minimum wage should be enough to support a family nore is that its intention.

This lies in the growing falsehood that we have to work as a human species to survive going forward in the face of humans having to do less because we're smart enough to create things to do our jobs for us.

 

[TarNaru33]

I agree with most of your points. But just for reference, a mean income would be bloated by the 1%. The top earners can't bloat a median because it is the center point of all workers. If you have 11 people it wouldnt matter if the top earner made 1 million or 1 billion. The median wouldn't change. Only pointing this out because it's often misinterpreted in these types of discussions and the distinction is important.

I didn't think of it that way, I guess i did overlook that basic math lol. Thanks, I will remember to not mistake those.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Expecting an individual to better themselves by starting at the bottom is life and applies to everything we do starting with crawling, to walking, to education at a very young age. The same mantra continues in a work environment when starting at the bottom for a job. You should never stay there, that's why it's the beginning. If you choose to not advance that's on you, we should not expect the government to come to ones aid because they could not apply themselves and learn and develop a valuable skill set unless they have some sort of disability.

You are not ever going to have 0% unemployment and with automation intelligent people and people with skills are going to be displaced. The job growth there will demand even more technical skills and there will be less jobs doing it. It's literally naive to believe in this "work hard, boot strap up, level up your skills" ideal can apply to an entire populace. It literally can't. The economy doesnt work like that.

 

[Absinthe]

If your personal experiences match up with this idealized fantasy you've just described, and these are your attitudes, well, then, you just have no appreciation for how lucky & fortunate you have been

Please explain?

I don't agree it's an idealized fantasy to apply oneself and advance. My experience is, when I turned 15 I got my first job and McDonalds and took the bus after school to get there. They would only let me work 20 hours a week so I got a second job that I would go to after my first one and my mom would pick me up nightly at 10. I did this a few days out of the week and worked most Saturdays. Over time I moved up at McDonalds and became a crew trainer so I made more money and got raises for doing good and eventually moved on to better jobs.

I wouldn't say any of this was luck. I just took the opportunity I had to get a job and kept working.

You are not ever going to have 0% unemployment and with automation intelligent people and people with skills are going to be displaced. The job growth there will demand even more technical skills and there will be less jobs doing it. It's literally naive to believe in this "work hard, boot strap up, level up your skills" ideal can apply to an entire populace. It literally can't. The economy doesnt work like that.

Sure but we're not discussing automation and how that will affect the low end workforce of which I am very afraid of it's affect on both our country and all those involved. In my opinion the push for higher minimum wage will only expedite that process.

This lies in the growing falsehood that we have to work as a human species to survive going forward in the face of humans having to do less because we're smart enough to create things to do our jobs for us.

Again, that has nothing to do with minimum wage though I agree, us as a species relying on working to live etc will hopefully come to an end at automation increases and our knowledge or technology can help advance our lives.

But then what? I believe for each human internally there's still a drive to do something in life.

 

[SMattera]

See the rest of my post.

Do you think a household doesn't deserve to earn the median income, which is already well behind the inflation rate for median income from 1978?

Wage stagnation is a real thing. Less resources for families despite increasing costs is reason enough.

Why the median? The median of what? The country as a whole? Why not the median of a city or state? Why 1978?

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Sure but we're not discussing automation and how that will affect the low end workforce of which I am very afraid of it's affect on both our country and all those involved. In my opinion the push for higher minimum wage will only expedite that process.

You can't ignore the reality of the situation I just said. You will never have 0% unemployment. You will have less working class jobs and middle class jobs as automation increases. You will then have even more people fighting for even fewer jobs.

Employment is not like an appartment building with a bunch of levels all equally distributed. It's a pyramid. Everyone can't bump up their skills and move to a higher level. Working class compromise the bottom of the pyramid. They are not all going to reach the top. It's impossible. They wont all even feasibly reach the middle. Not just due to lack of will. It's not actually possible.

So the argument of work hard and bootstrap is a pointless one. Not everyone in an economy can actually do this. That is what you just wont accept. There are not positions available for everone to do this. And even if they could it is still implied on the ideal that we all have equal ability to achieve which we don't and we all should infinitely acquire skills, which we cant. What happens when you are a highly skilled financial worker but they just automated your task with a program. You get up and about at 40 and just boostrap your way into another position while suddenly not making enough money to support yourself?

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

$15 Canadian? Sure. $15 US? Not happening anytime soon. US' minimum wage will always be behind Canada's minimum wage.

Should it happen? Why not.

 

[WormBoi]

I make about 5x our local minimum wage and I am completely grateful for it.

Of course, I wouldn't be able to live my current lifestyle if I were making miniwage. HOWEVER, I wouldn't even try to if that were the case, NOR would I blame others for me not making enough money. That isn't how I was raised and it definitely is not how the world works or should even work.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I make about 5x our local minimum wage and I am completely grateful for it.

Of course, I wouldn't be able to live my current lifestyle if I were making miniwage. HOWEVER, I wouldn't even try to if that were the case, NOR would I blame others for me not making enough money. That isn't how I was raised and it definitely is not how the world works or should even work.

You see, shit like this, I do not get it. Do you think that someone working a McDonald's making $7/hr is trying to live some extravagant lifestyle? Do you think their beef is with people making more money than them or the fact that they dedicate a large portion of their time to a job that doesn't pay them enough to survive?

Like, you think these people are just lazy and jealous?

 

[Deepwater]

This is a tautology that is often repeated as a fact in this thread and threads like it. But just because you want it to be, doesn't make it true. As much as I'd love for all jobs to pay a living wage, all jobs may not be worth a living wage, either due to the value created or due to competition. That's just reality. If the job doesn't pay enough, people shouldn't take the job. Then employers will offer more if they need the job filled.

Or does the "market forces will sort it out" argument only apply when it supports your desired conclusions (like when it's argued that other salaries will rise ITT)?

Notice how I said 40 hours. As in, full time. As in, sacrificing literally 1/2 of the time that you're awake each day to perform labor for a company. If you don't believe that someone sacrificing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, shouldn't be paid a living wage, you just don't like poor people.

I'm not saying someone working part time should be able to live comfortably, but if a walmart greeter or a grocery store cashier is working 40 hours a week they deserve to take home a check that will let them survive. Period. If companies can't do that, that's why part time work exists.

Saying "if the pay isn't enough, people shouldn't take the job" is complete bullshit because POOR people don't have that luxury of being choosy. And because poor and working class people run this damn economy, there needs to be govt. regulation to make sure that companies are paying them a fair wage if they are working full time.

 

[Absinthe]

You can't ignore the reality of the situation I just said. You will never have 0% unemployment. You will have less working class jobs and middle class jobs as automation increases. You will then have even more people fighting for even fewer jobs.

Employment is not like an appartment building with a bunch of levels all equally distributed. It's a pyramid. Everyone can't bump up their skills and move to a higher level. Working class compromise the bottom of the pyramid. They are not all going to reach the top. It's impossible. They wont all even feasibly reach the middle. Not just due to lack of will. It's not actually possible.

So the argument of work hard and bootstrap is a pointless one. Not everyone in an economy can actually do this. And even if they could it is still implied on the ideal that we all have equal ability to achieve which we don't and we all should infinitely acquire skills, which we cant.

And I agree that automation will start to replace jobs but that is still not a reality and the push for higher minimum wage (which is what this thread is about) will only expedite that process.

Currently there are still minimum wage, food service, retail etc jobs that have not been replaced. The point of those jobs is as an introduction to working where they train you to do the job and you do it to the best of your abilities. You can learn a lot from just working and being in a work environment. Skills of discipline, how to manage money, how to work as a team, how to excel under pressure and much more. All of this can be applied to other jobs as you move on.

Sure there is no reality where everyone reaches the top, or even the middle, you will always class separation but that no excuse to just give up or act like it's helpless or blame someone else because you don't have something. Life is hard, really damn hard but it's up to the individual to grow, learn, and adapt because no ones going to do it for them.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

And I agree that automation will start to replace jobs but that is still not a reality and the push for higher minimum wage (which is what this thread is about) will only expedite that process.

2 things. 1) It has already started to happen. Automation isn't coming. It's here and its going to continue to increase. Higher minimum wage will not expedite the process. No company that can automate today, wont because "it's not necessary". They are all going to automate regardless because if you wanna make money why the hell would you not push for the cheapest method? I work in manufacturing. All new equipment my company buys has to have an automation aspect if it is to be approved. A robot can produce 3x the components a person in the same time. Why would we not do this now

Currently there are still minimum wage, food service, retail etc jobs that have not been replaced. The point of those jobs is as an introduction to working where they train you to do the job and you do it to the best of your abilities.

That is not the point of these jobs. These jobs have hard ceilings on where you can reach without an education and they aren't high. These jobs dont exist so you can get skills for other jobs. They exist so thencompany you can work for can make as much money as possible. If they could make it so you gain literally 0 skills they would so they would have less turn over.

You can learn a lot from just working and being in a work environment. Skills of discipline, how to manage money, how to work as a team, how to excel under pressure and much more. All of this can be applied to other jobs as you move on.

I work in a manufacturing plant and the people on the shop floor conduct what I would argue is skilled labor beyond what working at fast food or retail requires. Without an education basically none of them will make it to the office where I work. This isn't 50 years ago. Without an education you are not going to move anywhere appreciable if you are working class. And that should be fine because it is impossible for the bulk of these people to actually transition up anyway because (say it with me) there are physically not enough jobs to support that.

Sure there is no reality where everyone reaches the top, or even the middle, you will always class separation but that no excuse to just give up or act like it's helpless or blame someone else because you don't have something. Life is hard, really damn hard but it's up to the individual to grow, learn, and adapt because no ones going to do it for them.

This isn't about blaming. This is literally some selfish ass bullshit projection. It's about acknowledging there is a reality that not every CAN move up and make more money. It isn't about giving up, it's about a solidified market fact. So instead of shouting bootstrap we need to propose an actual solution. Is it universal income? Is it increased minimum wage?

Who knows but it isn't, "oh just work harder".

 

[Absinthe]

2 things. 1) It has already started to happen. Automation isn't coming. It's here and its going to continue to increase. Higher minimum wage will not expedite the process. No company that can automate today, wont because "it's not necessary". They are all going to automate regardless because if you wanna make money why the hell would you not push for the cheapest method? I work in manufacturing. All new equipment my company buys has to have an automation aspect if it is to be approved. A robot can produce 3x the components a person in the same time. Why would we not do this now



That is not the point of these jobs. These jobs have hard ceilings on where you can reach without an education and they aren't high. These jobs dont exist so you can get skills for other jobs. They exist so thencompany you can work for can make as much money as possible. If they could make it so you gain literally 0 skills they would so they would have less turn over.



I work in a manufacturing plant and the people on the shop floor conduct what I would argue is skilled labor beyond what working at fast food or retail requires. Without an education basically none of them will make it to the office where I work. This isn't 50 years ago. Without an education you are not going to move anywhere appreciable if you are working class. And that should be fine because it is impossible for the bulk of these people to actually transition up anyway because (say it with me) there are physically not enough jobs to support that.



This isn't about blaming. This is literally some selfish ass bullshit projection. It's about acknowledging there is a reality that not every CAN move up and make more money. It isn't about giving up, it's about a solidified market fact. So instead of shouting bootstrap we need to propose an actual solution. Is it universal income? Is it increased minimum wage?

Who knows but it isn't, "oh just work harder".

You're missing the point. My primary post was directly related to the need for higher minimum wage and that it should be enough to "raise a family" on which I say is bullshit. Minimum wage jobs have always been the bottom, the bare minimum, and the start of what should be moving to other, more profitable positions. Sure not all of them are that way but you can go from Mcdonalds minimum wage to Starbucks with a higher wage and if you bust your ass at Starbucks become a manager then a district manager etc. One of my close friends did exactly that out of high school. No college education, just working and being good as his job (which is a pretty simple job)

Now, I used to be a CNC Swiss operator for a medical manufacturing place and it was a good job and I got it without any previous experience in manufacturing. All you had to know to start was how to measure things with calipers and a set of mics. I would argue that anyone who applied themselves could have gotten that same job coming out of a fast food scenario.

Outside of all this, yes automation is a real problem and in manufacturing you're going to see it happen as well, so there will have to be some sort of Basic Income along the road but I think it will take longer than we anticipate. If minimum wage employers (Walmart, McDonalds, etc) replaced all their workers tomorrow with automation they would go out of business because those people would no longer have money to buy that product.

 

[superbeau]

 

[Gotdatmoney]

You're missing the point. My primary post was directly related to the need for higher minimum wage and that it should be enough to "raise a family" on which I say is bullshit. Minimum wage jobs have always been the bottom, the bare minimum, and the start of what should be moving to other, more profitable positions. Sure not all of them are that way but you can go from Mcdonalds minimum wage to Starbucks with a higher wage and if you bust your ass at Starbucks become a manager then a district manager etc. One of my close friends did exactly that out of high school. No college education, just working and being good as his job (which is a pretty simple job)

What don't you get about not everyone can do this? I don't care that if you can work really hard advance in a career. It's not reflective of the reality that if everyone at your work busts their ass off, not everyone is going to have something to show for it. If everyone has a Bachelors degree, a Bachelors is not an advantage. Should one person's minimum wage allow you to raise a family? Probably not though if you want to have a family there normally is an expectation you have 2 incomes at some point unless 1 person makes way more money. (ie not minimum wage)

Now, I used to be a CNC Swiss operator for a medical manufacturing place and it was a good job and I got it without any previous experience in manufacturing. All you had to know to start was how to measure things with calipers and a set of mics. I would argue that anyone who applied themselves could have gotten that same job coming out of a fast food scenario.

This is great for you, but you are still ignoring my point. This idea that everyone can class up their skills to an income that is sustainable is not true. There are not enough jobs to do that. So telling everyone to work hard A) ignores the fact that if everyone is working hard, comparatively no one is working hard and B) that there are enough jobs that this advice will actually validly solve the issue with minimum wage which is that it can't actually fucking support life.

Can you just answer the basic question. If everyone did as you suggested and used minimum wage jobs as jump offs, do you think enough jobs exist that all these people would be able to just leave? Do you think it's just laziness that is the problem given you got a job where you just had to measure some shit?

Outside of all this, yes automation is a real problem and in manufacturing you're going to see it happen as well, so there will have to be some sort of Basic Income along the road but I think it will take longer than we anticipate. If minimum wage employers (Walmart, McDonalds, etc) replaced all their workers tomorrow with automation they would go out of business because those people would no longer have money to buy that product.

Yeah it's not as simple as this.

 

[Absinthe]

Can you just answer the basic question. If everyone did as you suggested and used minimum wage jobs as jump offs, do you think enough jobs exist that all these people would be able to just leave? Do you think it's just laziness that is the problem given you got a job where you just had to measure some shit?

To address your question most teenagers/college goers use food service jobs as a starter job and they move on and are replace by other teenagers/college goers. IMO that is their purpose outside of waiters who, due to tips, can actually make a good living and move up to higher end restaurants/bars.

Now I could be living in some fantasy world but yes, I think enough jobs exist outside of minimum wage to facilitate people moving on that want to move on. Some don't and that's fine for them.

As for laziness I think that its that or a mindset of being a victim or failure or fear or insecurity or just that they can't do it that stops people from furthering themselves.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

To address your question most teenagers/college goers use food service jobs as a starter job and they move on and are replace by other teenagers/college goers. IMO that is their purpose outside of waiters who, due to tips, can actually make a good living and move up to higher end restaurants/bars.

Eh, teenagers and college goers aren't using service jobs as starter jobs. It's not a jump off. They do it to make money to fund an education. There aint shit flippling burgers at McDonalds qualifies you to do.

Now I could be living in some fantasy world but yes, I think enough jobs exist outside of minimum wage to facilitate people moving on that want to move on. Some don't and that's fine for them.

Okay so it literally is just dillusion and boot strap mentality fueling your argument. That makes it easy to not look to deeply for some other actual argument.

As for laziness I think that its that or a mindset of being a victim or failure or fear or insecurity or just that they can't do it that stops people from furthering themselves.

According to you all they have to do is work hard at their current job and it's smooth sailing thougg. So I dunno. It cant be anything other than laziness because otherwise the opportunities would just materialize on the basis of lots of them seemingly existing.

 

[poppedcollar69]

Now I could be living in some fantasy world but

 

[Absinthe]

Eh, teenagers and college goers aren't using service jobs as starter jobs. It's not a jump off. They do it to make money to fund an education. There aint shit flippling burgers at McDonalds qualifies you to do.

Okay so it literally is just dillusion and boot strap mentality fueling your argument. That makes it easy to not look to deeply for some other actual argument.

According to you all they have to do is work hard at their current job and it's smooth sailing though. So I dunno. It cant be anything other than laziness because otherwise the opportunities would just materialize on the basis of lots of them seemingly existing.

You seem to to be confused, and for some reason emotional about a very simple concept. It's sad that you would support mediocrity in people; that they don't have to work hard to gain anything because it's too difficult so why encourage them to. Also, getting an education means nothing is you don't have basic work ethic which is what you should learn at a minimum wage job during highschool. Working hard at your current job is part of being a good employee not saying you would ever stay at that job, you should always look to improve your career. Not pursuing any sort of job advancement while working a minimum wage job is ridiculous and no one should be satisfied with that. Victim mentality at its finest.

What I know is everyone I've encountered with a good work ethic has been able to prosper. Those that don't and want to point the finger at everyone else for their problems do not. It's pretty cut and dry though insensitive to those who want to cry foul for things not going their way or still working a shit job. And those that work a shit job and then want a family are doing a disservice to their children and setting those kids up for failure.

Good talk.

Sure bud. Or maybe the people I encounter with good values and work ethic don't complain when things don't go their way, they take the opportunities they have and make something out of them.

This could be a foreign concept to some.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Not to be insensitive but I have to agree. The minimum wage was never something you could live off of into your late 20's, it was something you got in high school thru college to support yourself until you got a better job.

I mean as long as you ignore the time period in US history where it was, and you ignore the President who ushered in minimum wage's statement on it being a livable wage, sure one could make your argument.

 

[Spectone]

As for laziness I think that its that or a mindset of being a victim or failure or fear or insecurity or just that they can't do it that stops people from furthering themselves.

So much pretentious bullshit in this statement I don't even know how to reply.

 

[FyreWulff]

Not to be insensitive but I have to agree. The minimum wage was never something you could live off of into your late 20's, it was something you got in high school thru college to support yourself until you got a better job.

It was absolutely intended to be lived off of. If it had been properly pegged to inflation it would actually be around 23$ right now.

This idea that some jobs are not real jobs is an invention of a warped worldview.

 

[Zaru]

The specific $15 dollar number is dangerous in that it would be wholly inappropriate in some places, and in other places maybe not even enough. I would be more supportive of the movement if it changed its mantra to "50% of the median wage in a county", or something like that.

Yeah I don't get why some people are hung up about getting a SPECIFIC NUMBER.
That would always just be a step and then you'd have to do the whole annoying process again some years down the line of inflation and economic changes.
There needs to be a defined process to determine a "living" wage which should be the minimum, if you're gonna do a minimum wage.