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

[KabeRinnaul]

I'm using it as a rhetorical device. All I hear about is how it's unfair that some people make significantly more than others. So I'm tongue-in-cheek remedying the problem.

See, what makes it a strawman here is that no one else is talking about it. This is your argument and yours alone. Honestly. I just went and re-read the entire thread. Unless you count a couple people arguing that workers are paid unfairly little for what they do, nobody else has brought your class warfare strawman into it.

As far as "Why do (I) care what other people get paid?", I could ask the same question.

Well, for me, first off, it's not just other people. I make $8.15 an hour. Which means in all those statistics, I'm not a minimum wage worker, because minimum is $8.00.

I assure you, that extra ~$20 per month isn't making much difference.

But, sure, let's argue in the broader sense. Why should I care what others get paid?

Well, insofar as how much someone gets paid, I really don't. I mean, sure, it may strike me as absurd that someone who exhibits incompetence and apathy makes six or seven figures, but that's not really my problem most of the time.

As for how little others get paid? That's important. And mostly answered by others (particularly Andara) in the first three pages of the thread.

That it's unconscionable that, in one of the strongest economies in the world, we risk (or forego) some of our citizen's ability to eat, find shelter, receive medical care, or otherwise get by in the world, all for what amounts to political talking points.

That it can open up the job market by eliminating the need for two-income households or individuals working multiple jobs.

That it reduces tax burden by reducing dependence on federal assistance.

That it strengthens the economy by improving the spending power of the working class.

I could think of more, but honestly, there are a multitude of good reasons to raise minimum wage, and none thus far not to.

Well, no reasons that don't basically amount to the privileged whining that they are now relatively less privileged than before, but I said good reasons.

[Rapscallion]

Ugh, you're really going to go the Welfare Queen route?

A mate of mine became an employer of several minimum wage employees in the UK this year. The only ones who have more than subsistence goods are those with more than one income in the family group. He told me of one woman he went to visit who was ... dignified, I guess? Her flat was pretty much bare (chair, table, thin carpet, fridge, cooker - basics), and she had an old CRT television of what he guessed to be 15 inch screen size that had apparently been a donation. That was it. She was near enough destitute and without a chance to get a start in life.

Anecdote, granted, but the Welfare Queen anecdote always makes me want to see those claiming the unemployed have it so good with their time off and free money try to live on what the state provides. I've not seen many turn their back on gainful employment and live on handouts. The few I've seen have had that sort of lifestyle for some years, dipping in and out of employment due to only short-term contracts being available.

It's really not that desirable.

Without being an academic whizz at this stuff, from what I understand the issue isn't the level of pay so much as the ratio of pay. A small percentage are apparently worth so much more than other people, and it's there that the money goes - not to the middle-income or the lower income demographics, and even the upper income demographics aren't doing more than a small percentage of the super rich. The gap between rich and poor has been growing for some generations. This isn't the politics of envy. It's the politics of people being unable to afford healthcare and other basic necessities.

Rapscallion

[mjr]

See, what makes it a strawman here is that no one else is talking about it. This is your argument and yours alone. Honestly. I just went and re-read the entire thread. Unless you count a couple people arguing that workers are paid unfairly little for what they do, nobody else has brought your class warfare strawman into it.

It's entirely about class warfare. If profits and C-level pay are the problem, isn't that one of the definitions of "class warfare"?

Well, for me, first off, it's not just other people. I make $8.15 an hour. Which means in all those statistics, I'm not a minimum wage worker, because minimum is $8.00.

I assure you, that extra ~$20 per month isn't making much difference.

Ok...full time that's almost $17,000 per year. What sorts of expenses do you have? Rent? utilities? debt?

What's your plan to go from $8.15 to $9.00? To $11?

I started off working in Fast Food at 16. Almost 24 years ago. I was one of those low-wage workers. I worked my way up to salaried management with a yearly salary of $17K, and the expectation of working 50 hours or so per week.

Got a factory job for a bit, decided I didn't want to do that, and ended up getting programming skills. Fast forward about fifteen years and I'm a software engineer making in the low $70K per year range. I've had recruiters contact me for positions ranging from $85K to over $100K. Most of them are farther than I want to drive, though.

I'm not telling this story to brag. I'm telling this story to make a point. The point is, at one point I didn't have a plan. I made one, got a different set of skills, and "moved up" the socioeconomic ladder.

I get that some people can't do that. But I'd think that number is smaller than the overall group we're talking about.

Well, insofar as how much someone gets paid, I really don't. I mean, sure, it may strike me as absurd that someone who exhibits incompetence and apathy makes six or seven figures, but that's not really my problem most of the time.

As for how little others get paid? That's important. And mostly answered by others (particularly Andara) in the first three pages of the thread.

"How much" is the general term, though, when people refer to the wages that a person makes.

So someone would ask you, "How much do you make?" not, in general, "How little do you make?" So that's a little semantic, in my opinion.

political talking points.

Except for the fact that when one party (i.e. the Democratic party) had the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, they did little to nothing about it. Talking points, indeed.

[Jetfire]

IIRC, when the Democrats had all of the houses, the 15$/hour movement was still building. I think the economy was in a downturn, but it was the start of a downturn, so people weren't as likely to be as aware of how low Minimum wage actually is (Not to mention the other tricks Big Corps are doing to maximize profits at any costs).

A few years later, now more people have been out of work for longer times, or they've been forced to take minwage jobs (or near min-wage jobs); so the general awareness of how little that is, and how short the buck goes nowadays is more obvious. Thus the volume level of the issue has been going up; especially as the cause goes viral.

This is a problem that is a-political; both the Republicans and Democrats are at fault for not taking care of this decades ago when the wage vs costs gap started growing. Now, it's more a matter of who's going to be the one to fix it properly. (or at least slap another bandaid on and punt it for a few more years)

[mjr]

Now, it's more a matter of who's going to be the one to fix it properly. (or at least slap another bandaid on and punt it for a few more years)

Your points are valid, Jetfire, but to address this:

"Fix it properly" can mean many different things, depending on who you are, and who you talk to.

Many people (in general) would believe that "fix it properly" means "fix it the way I want it fixed."

[KabeRinnaul]

It's entirely about class warfare. If profits and C-level pay are the problem, isn't that one of the definitions of "class warfare"?

It's about allowing our working class to fail, hobbling our own economic recovery, and risking another great depression, all for no reason beyond a fixation on some warped interpretation of the protestant work ethic.

Ok...full time that's almost $17,000 per year. What sorts of expenses do you have? Rent? utilities? debt?

What's your plan to go from $8.15 to $9.00? To $11?

My personal situation is irrelevant to the greater discussion, and regardless of my answer, you're only going to use it to dismiss the problem once again. Discussing theoretical resolutions to one individual's situation has no bearing whatsoever on the overall problem. It's almost a survivorship bias, but it's even worse because we're not talking about an actual success story, but instead inventing an optimal success story whole cloth and using that to judge other situations.

And on the whole, your response just looks for distractions from the actual problem, rather than answering any of the points I actually made. Though one item deserves special mention.

"How much" is the general term, though, when people refer to the wages that a person makes.

So someone would ask you, "How much do you make?" not, in general, "How little do you make?" So that's a little semantic, in my opinion.

I was using different wordings to stress that someone making too much is not nearly as big a concern as many people making too little. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be that poor.

[Gravekeeper]

I started off working in Fast Food at 16. Almost 24 years ago. I was one of those low-wage workers. I worked my way up to salaried management with a yearly salary of $17K, and the expectation of working 50 hours or so per week.

You can stop yourself right there. The US economy and job market of today is not the same as it was 24 years ago. Comparing 17k now to what it was 24 years ago is also ridiculous. The bleak reality of the situation is that hard work is not enough in the US economy.

If you are living paycheque to paycheque and still need government assistance to keep off the street you don't have the time or money to go "get" programming skills or any other skills for that matter. There are so many more factors at play here than just telling someone hey, work harder or get some skills.

You sincerely don't seem to understand the position of someone who works full time and still can't keep food on the table. It has nothing to do with laziness or an unwillingness to work. Some of these people work their asses off 40+ hours a week and still can't make ends meet.

Except for the fact that when one party (i.e. the Democratic party) had the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, they did little to nothing about it. Talking points, indeed.

Ugh, here we go.

[mjr]

You can stop yourself right there. The US economy and job market of today is not the same as it was 24 years ago.

I never said it was, did I?

Comparing 17k now to what it was 24 years ago is also ridiculous.

So is comparing $70K now to $70K 24 years ago. That wasn't my point.

The bleak reality of the situation is that hard work is not enough in the US economy.

That's an attitude I refuse to have. Unless you mean hard work alone is not enough, in which case I sort of agree. It's also about attitude, gaining knowledge, and improving yourself. Daily.

If you are living paycheque to paycheque and still need government assistance to keep off the street you don't have the time or money to go "get" programming skills or any other skills for that matter. There are so many more factors at play here than just telling someone hey, work harder or get some skills.

I disagree, somewhat. The internet has MANY free ways to gain knowledge and skills. Right now I could google any number of things, and learn about them -- at this very minute. Higher-level math, physics, how the cardiovascular system works, all sorts of things.

You sincerely don't seem to understand the position of someone who works full time and still can't keep food on the table.

Then you missed my backstory. I've explained it many times.

It has nothing to do with laziness or an unwillingness to work.

In most cases, you're right. And I never said it did.

Ugh, here we go.

Tell me how I'm wrong, then.

[mjr]

And on the whole, your response just looks for distractions from the actual problem, rather than answering any of the points I actually made. Though one item deserves special mention.

Or perhaps I simply have a different way of thinking of things.

I was using different wordings to stress that someone making too much is not nearly as big a concern as many people making too little. Your reading comprehension can't possibly be that poor.

Apparently, people do care that the Wal-Mart CEO makes what he does. That's where this whole "wage gap" thing comes in, anyway. Because some people make way more per year than others. Isn't that part of the entire argument?

And my reading comprehension is just fine. I'm just going by how you worded things. I've never had anyone ask me, "How little do you make?" Ever.

[s_stabeler]

mjr, I am beginning to wonder, quite frankly, if you are a troll.

THE ISSUE IS THAT SOMEONE EARNING MINIMUM WAGE CANNOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES- AS IN BE ABLE TO BUY THE BASICS- WITHOUT SPENDING PRACTICALLY EVERY WAKING MINUTE AT WORK

In short, the issue for MW workers is that they literally don't have TIME to learn new skills. That, and the poverty itself can act to make it harder to learn new skills.

To summarise, I don't actually care how much the CEO earns, as long as the company he controls doesn't make it's money by forcing it's lowest-paid workers to get government assistance to survive- oh, and not to mention that the super-rich always seem to be lobbying for that same assistance to be cut so their taxes can eb lowered.

[Jetfire]

I disagree, somewhat. The internet has MANY free ways to gain knowledge and skills. Right now I could google any number of things, and learn about them -- at this very minute. Higher-level math, physics, how the cardiovascular system works, all sorts of things.

And just when is someone going to find TIME to take those courses to gain those skills when they have to work 2 jobs JUST to make enough to live?

Especially if they can't afford their own internet at home, so they have to rely on places like library access... libraries that are not usually open during the times they are not working.

That's the other factor that the low min wage causes. It means that someone is a slave to their job(s); they have to work 60-80+ hours a week JUST to get by, leaving them virtually no time (or energy) to do anything else. It's hard to learn those other skills to lift yourself up when you only have a couple hours a day late at night after working two shifts back to back just to get by.

[BlaqueKatt]

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..."

So now, Jim goes to his boss (who has to go up the proverbial ladder and get things approved) and asks for a raise, saying that he has 10 years experience, is a hard worker, and so forth.

These are both perfect examples of "sunk cost fallacy"
another explanation here

I've also worked at places with salary caps, once you hit the cap(which was usually 30% of the starting wage), you didn't get any raise until the starting wage went up. So someone working 5 years was at the same as someone having worked 10 if the starting wage hadn't increased. My partner is at the salary cap of $16/hour after 10 years, I just hit my two year and am at $13/hour. We hire EMTs at $14/hour. the most anyone can make is $16. that's it.

The average Wal-Mart hourly worker (not including management) already makes $11.81/hour. Above what I noted previously.

But let's consider: Even at that rate, that's $24,564.80/year, or approximately $2,047/month. So again: Is $24.5K livable?

except it's more like 18,500, or $1535 month-with average rent in us cities being $900.(affordable rent for that wage is $460/month)
Amazing how the tax rate of around 25% for single people vanished in your example.

rent above 30% of monthly income is considered "unaffordable". Many places won't let you rent if you don't make at least 2-3x rent, which Is why I had to move when I got divorced, I made $13.50 an hour and NO ONE WOULD RENT TO ME. I spent nearly TWO YEARS trying to find an apartment I could "afford" and failed.

Or what about my other solution? Just let the government look at each job, and decide how much each job is "worth", and have the government set the prices? That'd be fair, wouldn't it?

several countries do this.

I see it as a strawman for the implication; That just because someone making minimum wage has the latest iFruit, that minWage is too high; when there are other possible explanations. (It was a gift from a richer friend, they scrimped and saved for it, they are buying it on an installment plan, they had a higher paying job when they got it, etc...)

poor people aren't allowed to have nice things for any reason. They're required to live in misery as incentive.

The average Walmart associate is receiving $1000 in government assistance. You, the taxpayer, are paying for their workforce. Because they won't.

and giving their executives bonuses reduces walmart's tax bill they gave 300 MILLION in bonuses to executives.

Those executives took home nearly $300 million in “performance pay” which the company notes is tax deductible:

Except for the fact that when one party (i.e. the Democratic party) had the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, they did little to nothing about it. Talking points, indeed.

"Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010..

check facts not talking points

[Canarr]

Disagree. That's part of the entire thing. At least that's what we're told by advocates. That corporations who have high profits (from a dollar perspective) are somehow "greedy"...

Any company paying their employees so little that they need government assistance to survive is, in fact, having their profit subsidizied by the government - and thus, by the tax payer. No matter the exact percentage of profit they make, it is too much!

Honestly, how can you be okay with this? How can you say, sure, just pay your employees a pittance so you can take home more cash at the end of the year? Don't worry, I'll make up the difference out of my own pocket!

http://www.eater.com/2015/4/13/84039...d-stamps-study

[Gravekeeper]

That's an attitude I refuse to have. Unless you mean hard work alone is not enough, in which case I sort of agree. It's also about attitude, gaining knowledge, and improving yourself. Daily.

Do you know how condescending that would sound to someone working two jobs and still having to turn to foodstamps?

I disagree, somewhat. The internet has MANY free ways to gain knowledge and skills.

Yes, many employers accept "I learned it off the Internet" as a certification of skills on a resume. -.-

Tell me how I'm wrong, then.

Your economy would be a smoldering crater if not for Democrats and it would never have been a smoldering crater to begin with if not for Republicans. The US economy always does better when a Democrat is in the White House.

As for control of the White House / House / Senate the Democrats only controlled all 3 for a tiny window. You can turn that silly argument right around and ask why Republicans didn't do anything when they had all 3.

[mjr]

And just when is someone going to find TIME to take those courses to gain those skills when they have to work 2 jobs JUST to make enough to live?

It's not a matter of "taking courses". Go to Khan Academy and watch a 5 or 10 minute video. Read a short tutorial on something.

Especially if they can't afford their own internet at home, so they have to rely on places like library access... libraries that are not usually open during the times they are not working.

So in all honesty...how many "low wage" workers do you think this applies to? How many of those same low-wage workers have FaceBook pages? I'm curious what you think the numbers are.

It's hard to learn those other skills to lift yourself up when you only have a couple hours a day late at night after working two shifts back to back just to get by.

Nobody ever said it would be easy. I mean, heck, look at the story of Chris Gardner.

It's not easy for a 17 year old, either, to wake up at 5:30AM, go to school, have an extracurricular, work until almost midnight, and repeat the process 4 days a week, either. Then to put in a full shift on Saturday and/or Sunday. All to help support the household.

And are you talking two full-time shifts? Because my understanding is, for the most part, that many of these "low wage" jobs are part-time.