$15 minimum wage...I know I'm poking the bear, but...

[s_stabeler]

If we start policing every employer's firing decisions beyond discrimination, I think it could make for excessive litigation and red tape. Yes, there would be a lot of easy slam dunk cases like if an employee was habitually late or didn't show up, or was stealing, but what about other cases like the employer's budget not allowing them to afford the labor anymore, or if it's seasonal work? Would they have to give all of their financial statements to government beancounters to determine if they truly couldn't afford the payroll? And what about simple poor performance, which can often be subjective and based on their own policies and quotas, some of which can't really be measured depending on the nature of their job?

Employers already use flaky reasons to fire people they don't like, even in at-will jobs. If they don't like an employee, they just have to wait for them to make some human mistake like shorting the register $5 or being "rude" to an SC, and that's what they'll go by. If an employee who feels they were fired unjustly, it will be difficult to prove those cases in court.

I'm sorry, but that is about the most obvious strawman I have seen. There's a difference between letting an employer tell an employee "you're fired" out of the blue, and pouring over every single firing in minute detail.

How it works in a world where employers can't fire people on a whim:
1. you have a formal disciplinary procedure. Termination is at the end of said procedure- with opportunities at every stage for the employee to correct the problem. (aka, if an employee is a poor performer to perform better. if they break the rules, to quit breaking the rules)
2. redundancies. These are still allowed, with a couple of restrictions. (basically, you have to be fair in how you choose who is made redundant, and you can't re-advertise the position for something like 6 months.
3. seasonal work. This is usually handled by hiring people as temps, IIRC. If not, then you can probably write an employment contract for seasonal work.

oh, and as for that employee making a small mistake? in such a case, the disciplinary procedure probably wasn't followed (you have to give someone a certain amount of time to correct their behaviour, IIRC) so yes, the employee would find it easy to prove they were unfairly dismissed. Just like an employer who was reasonable could simply point to the completed disciplinary procedure, then the burden of proof is on the employee.

[Jetfire]

Yeah, the "Min Wage jobs are for kids" argument holds absolutely no water.

If someone ever gives that argument, then ask them how much people working 9-3 on Mondays to Fridays are supposed to earn? Or how kids are going to get an education if they are working those min wage jobs that are "just for for kids" during school hours.

Or maybe they'll prefer NOT to be able to go to McDs or other food locations for lunches. (Since those places would have to close without their MinWage workers that are 'just kids after all' )

Personally, I haven't worked an hourly job (let alone a min-wage job) in decades; but I still fully support raising the MinWage rates back up to living standards and locking them in there. It's (IMO) the right thing to do.

[ben_who]

Here's an observation I made when this discussion came up in my hometown: if the minimum wage went up to $15 per hour, I could BAG this dead-end, go-nowhere gig.

I get paid $15.51 and haven't seen a raise in twelve years; if the guys at the Burger King counter are making as much as I am, I might as well shake this place loose and go find another way to earn a living.

That means, for better or worse, the company would have to dig in to keep me around - that is, if my skills are so urgently valued. Hell, if the job gets abusive enough and the minimum wage is raised to twelve, I might still bag it and budget around the cut. Sucks to be the company, but if they wanted loyalty and respect, they should have paid us for it.

[Hyena Dandy]

The thing is, the whole "Well they're for kids" seems, to me, to just be denial, plain and simple. It's an irrelevant argument, because the question isn't "Who should have this job," it's "Who has this job."

[Jetfire]

If Minimum Wage is increased, and you no longer feel your current job is worth its reward; then by all means, quit and look for another one. If your bosses feel your work is valuable enough, they'll fight to keep you. If they don't feel its worth it, then you'll be in line to get a better (more enjoyable) job at least.

[mjr]

If Minimum Wage is increased, and you no longer feel your current job is worth its reward; then by all means, quit and look for another one. If your bosses feel your work is valuable enough, they'll fight to keep you. If they don't feel its worth it, then you'll be in line to get a better (more enjoyable) job at least.

Something that I think is being left out of the discussion:

What about the people that are already making over $15/hour, and worked for years to work their way up to, say, $18/hour? Should they get a bump? If so, by how much? If current minimum wage is $7.75, and they're bumping it up to $15, that's an increase of approximately 93.5%. So should the person making $18/hour get a 93.5% raise, too, if they had to work for, say, 5 years to get to the $18/hour mark? I mean, it's fair to do, right? They'll then be making approximately $34.84/hour (roughly $72,464.52 per year).

Does this type of "compassion" and "fairness" (as far as pay goes) only apply to certain people who make certain incomes? I mean, if this is about "fairness" and "what's right" then shouldn't the people that worked their way up to $16 or $17/hour get paid more, too? Or is it just, "too bad for you..."

Don't you think some of them would feel a little screwed? Should they get a commiserate bump in their hourly rates, as well? Why or why not?

How do you handle it, then, when more employers start to ask for (or demand) college degrees to work as a cashier, or as a cook at a restaurant? Then what? Because if you don't think that will happen (I know it is already, I'm talking about increasing the occurrences), I have a bridge to sell you.

What about salaried employees? If this is about "closing the wage gap", then I would assume that many have no general problem with making salaried wages "fair". But then again, what's "fair"?

Or is it OK for "skilled" salary workers to want the 93.5% pay increase, too? If I went to my boss and asked for a 93.5% raise, he'd laugh in my face, and rightfully so.

Also, did you know that legitimate sources have reported that in places where minimum wage was raised to $15/hour, that employees are now asking for fewer hours? Why, you ask? So they can keep their benefits. Who's surprised? I'm not.

Or, why don't we just spend MORE taxpayer dollars and start an agency that assigns a dollar value (yearly) to each and every job? I mean, wouldn't that be fair? Let's just let the Federal Government assign a salary/hourly rate to each job. That way companies don't have to worry about it.

That's fair, right?

[Kheldarson]

Also, did you know that legitimate sources have reported that in places where minimum wage was raised to $15/hour, that employees are now asking for fewer hours? Why, you ask? So they can keep their benefits. Who's surprised? I'm not.

You mean like these?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...llow-suit.html

http://usherald.com/after-getting-15...ay-on-welfare/


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...hour-min-wage/

Certainly bastions of unbiased thought there.

How about a little less bias?

http://www.snopes.com/seattle-15-minimum-welfare/

A few people worrying about whether or not they'll be able to make ends meet without their benefits does not an issue make.

[Canarr]

Does this type of "compassion" and "fairness" (as far as pay goes) only apply to certain people who make certain incomes? I mean, if this is about "fairness" and "what's right" then shouldn't the people that worked their way up to $16 or $17/hour get paid more, too? Or is it just, "too bad for you..."

Don't you think some of them would feel a little screwed? Should they get a commiserate bump in their hourly rates, as well? Why or why not?

That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think? The "compassion" part is not so much a case of, "poor fast food workers, let's throw a few more dollars at 'em!" - it's more a case of, "shouldn't minimum wage be the actual minimum that someone needs to live on?"

Sure, there are many aspects one could discuss here, but the basic gist is: if someone is working 50/60/70 hours per week, at two or three jobs, and still barely scraping by, they are not getting paid enough. If an employer such as Walmart or McDonalds has hundreds of thousands of people on their payroll who need to collect food stamps in addition to their pay, they are not paying them enough!.

It is as simple as that. It's not about evaluating how valuable it is to be a McDonalds worker vs. an EMT. It's about paying people a wage they can actually live on. I read an article on the subject recently; check this out:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ats-108014?o=0

No idea who this guy is, but he does make a few compelling points. Like this:

Wal-Mart is our nation’s largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won’t (and shouldn’t) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages—not just ask politely.

[mjr]

That's a bit of a strawman, don't you think? The "compassion" part is not so much a case of, "poor fast food workers, let's throw a few more dollars at 'em!" - it's more a case of, "shouldn't minimum wage be the actual minimum that someone needs to live on?"

Or what about "this is a starter wage, and therefore if I learn my job and do it well, I can move up the ladder"?

That argument could go many different ways.

But here's an example. And I readily admit this increase could be caused by any number of things.

A couple of months ago, I went to a local fast food place that I used to frequent for breakfast. I'd taken a break from them for a few months, but decided to try them again one morning instead of my usual breakfast.

I placed my usual order, and the price of what I had ordered had gone up by nearly 55% (from $5 for three items to around $7.74). Why? I don't know. Was the food any better? No. Was the service any better? No.

Sure, there are many aspects one could discuss here, but the basic gist is: if someone is working 50/60/70 hours per week, at two or three jobs, and still barely scraping by, they are not getting paid enough.

I hear the stories, and I don't doubt it, but who, and where, are these individuals? And why, for that matter, are they working positions like this? I mean, I've heard plenty of stories of people with two jobs, and I've known people with two jobs, but not really three or four. And if one of those is full-time, I don't see how someone could do two additional part-time jobs. When do they sleep/eat/whatever? I worked fast food for 4 1/2 years. I actually worked my way into management (which, even when salaried, didn't pay well). How? I showed up on time, worked hard, and did my job just a little bit better than the person next to me. Then I got into factory work for a bit, decided I didn't want to do that for the next 5 or 10 years, and did something about it.

Heck, my first ever salaried tech job paid $25K a year, and that was in 1998, and I had very few bills and still couldn't afford to live on my own. Was it the fault of the company I went to work for? Maybe. Maybe it was because I was a "wet behind the ears" 22 year old with newly acquired tech skills working for a very small company.

Sure, lots of good, hardworking people do that. But there's a larger point there. That point is that I didn't stay at that wage. And I'm quite sure that all the good, hardworking people don't, either.

But again, what happens when more of these places start looking for college degrees?

If an employer such as Walmart or McDonalds has hundreds of thousands of people on their payroll who need to collect food stamps in addition to their pay, they are not paying them enough!.

It is as simple as that.

I disagree. It's not that simple. On the surface, sure. But what can we find if we dig deeper?

This is part of the reason I made a tongue-in-cheek post (and was pretty much flamed for it) that we should just make all jobs, regardless of what they are, pay exactly the same amount (I suggested $250K/yr with a flat 25% tax rate for everyone). That way it doesn't matter if you're a big box store cashier, or a software engineer with 20 years experience. And instead of people telling me why it's a bad idea, I simply got flamed for it, because it was "ridiculous". But no one really said why.

It's not about evaluating how valuable it is to be a McDonalds worker vs. an EMT.

Somewhat disagree. While one could argue that a McDonalds worker and an EMT both get "specialized training", let's consider WHY the EMT gets paid more.

It's about paying people a wage they can actually live on. I read an article on the subject recently; check this out:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ats-108014?o=0

No idea who this guy is, but he does make a few compelling points. Like this:

Wal-Mart is our nation’s largest employer with some 1.4 million employees in the United States and more than $25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won’t (and shouldn’t) volunteer to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages—not just ask politely.

So it's about greedy corporations, then. I'd like to know what this guy's sources are, too. I notice that he actually leaves out what Wal-Mart's actual profit margin (as a percentage) is. And he doesn't say how much he thinks corporations should be allowed to make in profit.

We really need someone to tell us, in absolute, concrete terms, what "too much profit" is. I mean, even the President at one point said, "At some point, you've made enough money."

But nobody can seem to provide an example (other than nebulously) of what "too much profit" is.

Here's a great example. If I do a "side" job for someone doing software development, I might charge $100/hour. Now, aside from time away from family and such, my expenses are very, very low. Let's say it "costs" me about $1 per hour for work. And let's say the job takes me 20 hours. I just made $2,000, with a cost of $20, so my actual profit there would be massive, $1,980. In this case, did I make "too much" profit?

I think part of the flaw in his thinking is that it actually runs counter to what Wal-Mart (and most companies) wants, possibly. Wal-Mart wants a large customer base. Wal-Mart, like most major corporations, has it's interests in mind. The more people shop/spend there, the better they do.

Some companies (Tiffany, Mercedes, Ferrari, high-end restaurants, etc) will intentionally price certain people out of a market. I don't think that's the case with most big box and retail establishments. Would I like to buy a Lamborghini Hurrican? Sure. Can I afford one? Nope. That, and they're impractical for my family situation. Would I buy one even if I could afford it? Probably not. But I'm sure there are people out there who would. Lamborghini has intentionally priced people like me out of the market.

I understand that the corporations generally have more power than individuals do. That said, companies generally have to offer a wage that people will say "yes" to. If I send in a resume for a software engineering job, and the company wants to offer me $35K a year, it's well within my power to say "no". Whether or not I do is dependent upon my situation at the time, of course.

Have we checked the actual data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics?

One could argue that, "you get what you pay for". But I do have to wonder if $15/hour is going to help the girl at Sonic get my order right without me having to repeat it three times.

If you really wanna deal with wages in this country, tie Congressional pay to the average yearly income. Notice I didn't say wealth. I said income. They are two different things. Put it on a lag. If wages go up, Congress gets a raise. If wages go down, Congress gets a pay cut. Since obviously Congress (under any administration, really) is often "blamed" or "credited" for the economy.

[Kheldarson]

Or what about "this is a starter wage, and therefore if I learn my job and do it well, I can move up the ladder"?

Nothing wrong with a starter wage, but when companies are slashing rungs on the ladder and don’t give cost of living raises, the idea of a starting wage is kind of laughable.

I understand that the corporations generally have more power than individuals do. That said, companies generally have to offer a wage that people will say "yes" to.

And when all entry level jobs offer equivalent poor wages and you need a job, what wage are you going to say "no" to? This isn’t the 70's and 80's anymore. There aren't a plethora of jobs, skilled or otherwise. We have a huge workforce, desperate to make ends meet. The corporations have the ability to say "don't like it, well, here's your replacement". There's no leverage on the employee side to say "you need to have better conditions to get people here".

[Jetfire]

Frankly, the profit a company makes, and what people are earning above the min-wage points, are IMO, irrelevant to the discussion. (Especially the first part).

What it comes down to, is that someone working a full time (40hours/week) job should make enough to live without extra assistance at the location the job is at.

The 15$/hour is a rallying point for that fight; but for many places it is obviously more than what would be needed. The ultimate goal should be to set a minimum wage that is at a livable point, and then peg it so that it stays at that point. (So inflation will raise the minimum). At the same time, min wage increases should be capped so they don't shock the economy too much.

Some fake numbers example.
Let's say the minimum wage is 8$ an hour. Economists work out that a living wage would be 12$/hour. The region has a 5% inflation rate, and there is a 10% cap on min wage increases.

So Year Zero: Min Wage = 8$, Target Wage = 12$
Year 1: Min Wage = 8.80$, Target Wage = 12.60$
Year 2: Min Wage = 9.68$, Target Wage = 13.23$
Year 3: Min Wage = 10.65$, Target Wage = 13.89$
Year 4: Min Wage = 11.71$, Target Wage = 14.58$
Year 5: Min Wage = 12.89$, Target Wage = 15.31$
Year 6: Min Wage = 14.18$, Target Wage = 16.07$
Year 7: Min Wage = 15.60$, Target Wage = 16.87$
Year 8: Min Wage = 17.16$, Target Wage = 17.71$
Year 9: Min Wage = 18.59$, Target Wage = 18.59$

Year 9 is the first year there isn't a 10% raise because it's all caught up. From there on, min wage increases would match living costs increases theoretically.

The cap on increases, as I said, is to help shield from the shock of the increases a bit. It spreads the increases out. Mainly this will give a chance for people making more than the current minimums to negotiate their own increases as they go as well. Some companies will increase, others won't. The ones that won't will probably see workers leave for greener pastures.

But to address that argument about 'fair' pay, let's put aside the government min wage standards. Let's say there is a worker making 13$/hour, and they hear that Wendy's has decided to implement a 12.5$/hour minimum wage, independent of local/state/federal regulations, how would that affect them? Would it affect them if Subway and Carls Jr and Quiznos and Burger King all mimicked Wendys, so now they also have a 12.5$ minimum wage as well?

Of course that worker will probably be annoyed that they aren't making much more than a 'burger flipper' or 'sandwich artist' now. They ultimately have two choices. They could decide to switch jobs. Or they can negotiate (by themselves or with others if they can coordinate) for a higher wage.

[s_stabeler]

mjr, you have made several points I feel need to be addressed, since they are, to be frank, outright toxic.

1. minimum wage raises causing people that were earning above minimum wage to now be earning minimum. You answered that point yourself in your arguments against a rise in the minimum wage. If your job doesn't pay you what you think is worth it, then either request a raise (if you really are worth more, then, by your reasoning, it should be obvious that you are worth the higher wage and the employer should be willing to give you a raise.) That, and are you seriously saying that, to allow people earning slightly above minimum wage to have an ego trip, people should be forced to live in a situation where they can barely put food on the table? Because I can't, in all honesty, call that a moral choice. That, and if the company just tells you to expletive off, thye can easily find a replacement, that probably says a lot about how much thye actualyl value you as an employee.
2. minimum wage is for starter jobs for people leaving school. To answer this, I'll point out that the US Department of Labor site, Here mentions that 89% of those on minimum age are over 20. (ergo, are supporting themselves on said wages)
3. price rises. Um, I think it was calculated once that AT MOST- and this only IF the entire cost of raising the minimum wage was passed on- it would add something like 1 cent to the cost of the average fast food order. I don't disagree that it happens, but most of that price rise was either ingredient costs rising, or profiteering.
4. people asking for cuts in hours when wages increased. IIRC, first of all, the issue was a rise to $11, not $15. Second, the reason they wanted to keep their benefits was that, at $11, thye would be both unable to afford private rented accommodation, and too rich for subsidised accommodation. In short, the actual issue was that the rise was at exactly the wrong level: just enough for the workers to be ineligible for welfare, but too low to actually live on.
5. Job Losses. I'm not going to say it won't happen- though please bear in mind that there are companies that would use the minimum wage increase as an excuse for already-planned job losses- or that would cut jobs simply to make it look like it caused a bigger issue than it did- but In San Francisco- which recently abolished restaurant's ability to offset tips against the minimum wage, causing an increase to $12.25- an increase actually caused jobs to be created on average in the sectors affected
6. bad for economy- GDP has steadily risen, even in years with minimum wage increases.
7. how much is too much profit? well, to be frank? when you are making a profit by not paying your workers enough to live on unless that work truly ridiculous hours- I calculated it once, and it's physically impossible to both earn enough to scrape by on minimum wage, and get enough sleep- then any profit is too much. (I'm NOT saying it should be illegal to turn a profit. I'm saying it should be illegal to turn a profit y forcing your workers into such poverty that they have to worry about putting food on the table. If they have any dependants, they can't even afford to put food on the table. Oh, and forget about tie off work- even if you are sick- it means bakruptcy.)

In short, I find it despicable you can honestly argue that people should be forced to worry about starving just because some people aren't much better off.

[Aragarthiel]

I'm a bit surprised nobody has mentioned that the people that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be aimed at (students just entering the workforce) will NOT be working 40 hours a week, unless papers are filled out with the state to show that the student has a need for those hours (16-year-old high schooler got his girlfriend pregnant, for example). When the jobs are going to people who get 40+ hours a week, overtime, double shifts, and no holidays or benefits, and they STILL can't make ends meet, we have a problem.

Another thing that I realized went into our issues with underpaying entry-level workers is that when the economy collapsed, many older workers were misplaced and could only find entry-level work because their skills were considered obsolete or no longer needed. These people already had families to support and couldn't have seen massive lay-offs in time to get educated in another field. I mean, how many times do you walk into a fast food joint or grocery store and see women in their 40s working there? There's one Walmart near me that has to be at least 90% this kind of employee, and we've already discussed how Walmart pays their workers. I don't think I've ever seen an employee there younger than mid-30s.

[Rageaholic]

Okay if anyone feels cheated by their neighbors being paid a livable wage, fuck them.

[Hyena Dandy]

Yeah, I'm with Rage. How, exactly, does it hurt someone already making $15 an hour, if more people ALSO make $15 an hour. Why do you give a shit that other people get paid?

Edit: To be sure, I understand why it can be momentarily frustrating. What I don't understand is why there should be frustration beyond couple seconds. Sure, I get that, as human being, there is that frustration. But I see it the same way I see getting upset when you see your ex with someone else. Something that the momentary frustration should, you know, pass.