Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[Ender]

Milton Friedman used to say that the minimum wage law was the most anti-negro law on the books.

I’m old enough to remember some of the things that happened when a major jump in the minimum wage was imposed in the past. My family is from the deep South and while I didn’t grow up there we went back to visit quite frequently, and we were down there once shortly after the minimum wage had been bumped.

At the time, jobs for blacks were very hard to come by and a lot of black women worked in private homes as cooks, nannies, and maids. When the minimum wage jumped, those white families who were hiring them had to decide if they could now afford to pay those higher wages. My uncle the lawyer kept his maid on full time and she was clearly better off than before. My other uncles, who weren’t so well off, either significantly reduced the hours for their help or stopped hiring altogether. Those women were clearly worse off than before.

This effect is probably at least part of what Friedman was referring to.

Ender

 

[WildCatholic]

I think you’re missing the point.

The point is if we raised the minimum wage to a point that it it could look attractive, there are other problems. Most permanent computer programmers I know are salaried and many times called to work extra hours with no over time, so their price per hour goes down. If we forced McDonalds to pay $15 or $20/hr starting out, with full-time/overtime hours, it would start looking attractive to people who may just “tolerate” their current job if their pay wasn’t adjusted accordingly.

I see your point now. Hopefully the minimum wage doesn’t go that high. I guess I was distracted by the computer programmer part. I could see this happening with someone who maybe works in low skill manufacturing or mid level retail where someone might think it’s easier, especially for the pay. It would be pretty devastating if that were to happen. My concern is though that those just above minimum wage would struggle just as much as those who are already on minimum wage. $10 per hour still isn’t much and if minimum wage went up to say $15, it would increase their wage, but not their buying power. Of course there is validity to the left’s argument that middle class buying power and wages have stagnated the past 30 years. However, i thinks some of it is we spend a lot on stuff we didn’t have in 1984, such as internet access. Cable was just starting to come along. People also didn’t have anything equivalent to an iPad or a cell phone or a computer (though eventually all three of these are now on one device in some cases, it’s still pricy). Also, people forget that the flood of women entering the workforce also drove wages down for people (not that women shouldn’t be working mind you, but men were paid more because they were the bread winners on their own until the late 70’s early 80’s).

It’s all very complicated, and I can see why the Bishop would say this. However, when and if the economy gets better, I think people won’t care as much about minimum wage or people making a career of it. I mean it is sad when you have 25 year olds working at a grocery store part time (granted they may not have majored in something great). I certainly see both sides of the issue

 

[WildCatholic]

Sorry for doing this piecemeal, I agree with this part.

The problem I have had in looking for new work, and work just out of school is that many employers require “experience” but the only way to get experience is to have a similar job. How is one supposed to get job experience if school doesn’t count and no one will hire you because of experience? It is a paradox.

Or it could be that they want someone who is doing almost exactly the same thing now, but aren’t offering enough to get people away from their current employment. I.e. we’ll pay you the same amount (less or not much more in some cases) or no oppurtunity for future career advancement.

Then they turn around and claim that there is a “talent shortage”

No doubt it’s a huge paradox. Sadly, I think more businesses today are concerned about costs than employee well being. This also goes for the whole, need experience conundrum. I think a lot of businesses don’t care about people anymore. They are concerned with money and profit and could care less if someone loses their job.

On the flip side though I can see the talent shortage being an issue in a lot of fields. How many kids just go out and turn in 100 applications for jobs they aren’t qualified for, or barely meet the criteria. Too often I think colleges place just a little to much emphasis on critical thinking and not enough on job finding and training. Think of how many young people just focused on their academics without getting any sort of job.

Overall, I think it comes back to greed. I think a lot of employers simply want more money. Its not people focused anymore. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not trying to be some leftist who thinks we need to overthrow our bosses, but In a sense I wish we’d be more of a distributist type society like Chesterton talked about, or at least put subsidiarity more into practice. To me Big Business and Big Government are two sides of the same coin. When they are too big they don’t care about people, and eventually their goal will be to end up being the only game in town. Its like old GK said (i’ll paraphrase him) “Too much capitalism doesn’t mean too many capitalists, but too few” I wish we could just get to a point in the economy where we care about people as much as profits.

 

[InigoMontoya]

A minimum wage increase will increase the purchasing power of some workers, and decrease the purchasing power of others whose jobs go away. I suspect that if minimum wage laws were abolished, not much would change, because wages are really determined by market forces.

And a minimum wage doesn’t really ensure a stable purchasing power unless maximum prices are also established.

There’s been some interesting economic analysis and studies of late, questioning the markets setting of wages. As classical economic understanding states that as the pool of qualified applicants for a position lowers, while demand increases, wages should increase - yet that is not happening in several fields. Most glaring is in some of the more technical skilled trade areas.

The problem I have had in looking for new work, and work just out of school is that many employers require “experience” but the only way to get experience is to have a similar job. How is one supposed to get job experience if school doesn’t count and no one will hire you because of experience? It is a paradox.

Then they turn around and claim that there is a “talent shortage”

Traditionally the solution to that was internships. Unfortunately they traditionally predominately benefited only he upper middle class and above. Depending on your field though, there are other creative ways to gain experience. After all, creating your own startup is absurdly cheap now.

You’ve hit a recognized nail on the head, there’s certainly some discrepancies with the contested statement of their being talent shortages.

I think you make an important point. Another example, in many areas apprentice electricians make about $13 per hour, which is above minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes to $15 per hour, then that apprentice has a choice: flip burgers in an air-conditioned building, OR, work outside in either a very hot or very cold, labor intensive job.

I’m in bewilderment of the wages in the South East. We struggle to find top tier apprentice applicants, and we start them out at over $20 an hour!

Just after Sea-Tac (Seattle Tacoma) voted to raise the minimum wage, I saw a story about a number of businesses saying how they would either reduce their workforce (layoffs) or in one case not go through with a planned expansion. So some people will have more money to spend and others will have zero.

I really don’t see how an increase in minimum wage impacts employment positively. If you are a business, are you more likely to hire people or layoff people if your labor costs increase?

There’s a big discrepancy and a lot of bluster about what people say and do. You also have to consider that, I believe 80% of our economy is consumer based. So raising the average consumers wages and disposable income may have a greater economic impact than reducing the taxes paid by the richest. There’s a lot of studies on the issue, with very politicized results though.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Traditionally the solution to that was internships. Unfortunately they traditionally predominately benefited only he upper middle class and above. Depending on your field though, there are other creative ways to gain experience. After all, creating your own startup is absurdly cheap now.

You’ve hit a recognized nail on the head, there’s certainly some discrepancies with the contested statement of their being talent shortages.

I was in college during the last downturn in the early 2000’s. One summer, I and many people I knew had several leads/interviews and didn’t burn bridges when we declined offers. However, when we reached out to same people a year later, funds dried up and internship programs were one of the first to go.

Also, some fields like Software Engineering are huge. Do you do embedded development or do you do web or mobile apps? In theory, one should be able to move from one to the other as some of the underlying concepts are the same, just the syntax is different

I’m in bewilderment of the wages in the South East. We struggle to find top tier apprentice applicants, and we start them out at over $20 an hour!

What is the matter with hiring mid-tier applicants (and paying them as such) and developing them?

 

[shockerfan]

Here is an article that talks about it. It’s a lefty news source but he cites the academic papers.

americanprogressaction.org/issues/labor/news/2012/06/20/11749/the-facts-on-raising-the-minimum-wage-when-unemployment-is-high-2/

Thanks for the link. I also found some other articles that support the opposite perspective. I did find an interesting one that explains why experts disagree on whether raising the minimum wage has a negative or positive impact. Worth a read:

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/

 

[Ridgerunner]

The very first job I had was picking strawberries at six cents/quart. I was maybe six years old or so, and couldn’t pick more than maybe 25 quarts/day until I was older. The only people who picked strawberries then and there were kids, teenagers and really old people who were undoubtedly getting social security. The fastest pickers were teenage girls. Now and then, one would pick 100 quarts in a single day. I never achieved that.

I don’t know what the old people did with their earnings; probably they used it for little “extras” of one kind or another. The kids either saved every penny (me) or spent it on school clothes. Some few squandered it.

There were men and women who worked in the sheds for an hourly wage. I don’t know how much they made. But they had families. None of them picked.

So, though i don’t know it, I assume the shed workers were making a “living wage”. They had families. A lot of the men also worked at sawmills and canneries and such during their seasons. A lot of them did some farming too. As near as I could tell, they lived decently for the time and place. We pickers didn’t make a “living wage” in that same sense. We couldn’t have possibly lived on it, but we didn’t have to live on it and it was more money than we would have had if we didn’t do it. So we were happy enough to do it and were better off for it.

Undoubtedly, there is a “living wage” in terms of supporting a family in every locale. But is there any really good reason why a teenager who lives at home should be paid the same as a person who supports a family? And DO people who support families work at fast food places? Undoubtedly some do, but they’re probably also getting welfare or have a spouse who’s working. But in the fast food places I know of, the workers are all either teenagers or old people. Maybe a person who looks like he/she might have a family is the manager.

Reminds me of the strawberry patches.

I’m not yet convinced that attempting to pay “family support” wages in all instances is necessary or even beneficial, all things considered.

 

[shockerfan]

No doubt it’s a huge paradox. Sadly, I think more businesses today are concerned about costs than employee well being. This also goes for the whole, need experience conundrum. I think a lot of businesses don’t care about people anymore. They are concerned with money and profit and could care less if someone loses their job.

A company has to care about costs, because if it does not it could go out of business and more people would lose their jobs. Also, public companies are owned by stock holders, many of whom are retired and depend on stock performance for their well being.

On the flip side though I can see the talent shortage being an issue in a lot of fields. How many kids just go out and turn in 100 applications for jobs they aren’t qualified for, or barely meet the criteria. Too often I think colleges place just a little to much emphasis on critical thinking and not enough on job finding and training. Think of how many young people just focused on their academics without getting any sort of job.

I agree with you here. Too many kids get degrees in majors that are not in demand. They bought the snake oil the college was selling and are now stuck with big debt and no job.

Overall, I think it comes back to greed. I think a lot of employers simply want more money. Its not people focused anymore. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not trying to be some leftist who thinks we need to overthrow our bosses, but In a sense I wish we’d be more of a distributist type society like Chesterton talked about, or at least put subsidiarity more into practice. To me Big Business and Big Government are two sides of the same coin. When they are too big they don’t care about people, and eventually their goal will be to end up being the only game in town. Its like old GK said (i’ll paraphrase him) “Too much capitalism doesn’t mean too many capitalists, but too few” I wish we could just get to a point in the economy where we care about people as much as profits.

The problem is that people don’t put their money where their mouth is. Instead of supporting the local small business, they go to the big box store.

 

[Silvio_Dante]

God bless Archbishop Wenski and God bless American working men and women.

How any Catholic can support slave wage rates in race to the bottom economics is beyond my Social Justice comprehension…

 

[Orogeny]

How any Catholic can support slave wage rates in race to the bottom economics is beyond my Social Justice comprehension…

Um, what do YOU consider slave wages?

Peace

Tim

 

[zz912]

A minimum wage increase will increase the purchasing power of some workers,

No, it doesn’t. Because the higher minimum wage leads to higher inflation. So the purchasing power of those at minimum wage stays exactly the same.

 

[zz912]

God bless Archbishop Wenski and God bless American working men and women.

How any Catholic can support slave wage rates in race to the bottom economics is beyond my Social Justice comprehension…

1. At what income level do you stop being a “working” American?
2. I think I see the problem. Your social justice comprehension is lacking, as well as your comprehension of economics.

 

[tjones80]

The point I’m making is not that they don’t support raising the minimum wage but that they shouldn’t support it because determining whether doing so is a good or bad idea does not involve any moral choices. It is not a moral issue and the clergy really shouldn’t be suggesting that it is one.

Ender

In America minimum wage workers have barely enough to keep a roof over their heads. Single adults in many states can not qualify for food stamp assistance so they eat very poorly and can barely afford the food they buy.

What is the moral thing to do as a nation?

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, it doesn’t. Because the higher minimum wage leads to higher inflation. So the purchasing power of those at minimum wage stays exactly the same.

You want to cite your evidence on that one?

 

[Silvio_Dante]

Um, what do YOU consider slave wages?

Peace

Tim

Any wage that after working 40 hours a week does not provide for the worker’s basic needs and those of his/her family…

 

[Silvio_Dante]

1. I think I see the problem. Your social justice comprehension is lacking, as well as your comprehension of economics.

What a leap to make. But please try and back it up, while remaining consistant with Social Justice principles…

 

[stinkcat_14]

Any wage that after working 40 hours a week does not provide for the worker’s basic needs and those of his/her family…

Who says 40 hours is the appropriate amount of time to work in a week? Why not 60 hours?

 

[shockerfan]

Any wage that after working 40 hours a week does not provide for the worker’s basic needs and those of his/her family…

Are people in the same position to be paid different wages based on their family situation?

Example: A restaurant has 2 people who prepare food, one is 17 and lives at home, one is 35 and has a house, wife, 3 kids, 2 cars, and and elderly mother he cares for.

Do you pay them different for same work?

 

[shockerfan]

1. At what income level do you stop being a “working” American?

This is an excellent question. Many times I see language used by those on the left to describe “working American”, as an hourly worker putting in 40 hours per week, which seems to imply that perhaps an accountant putting in 70 hours a week, or a company president traveling 80% of the time…working 80 hours per week is not really working.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Are people in the same position to be paid different wages based on their family situation?

Example: A restaurant has 2 people who prepare food, one is 17 and lives at home, one is 35 and has a house, wife, 3 kids, 2 cars, and and elderly mother he cares for.

Do you pay them different for same work?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. We, as a society, rightly or wrongly, have decided you cannot discriminate based on age or family status.