We don’t set one rate for one worker because they are the sole earner in a family and then pay less to a worker who might be bringing in a second income. It interests me greatly that only the poorest have to justify the level of their earning or their need for a pay increase. The richest don’t need untold millions either
No, at every level we pay based on an agreement between the employer and employee. From richest to poorest. From mid-level managers on up to the CEO (unless he’s the also the owner) the pay is based on a negotiation when hired. That’s why salaries at those levels can vary greatly even for two people doing the exact same job. One person was better at negotiating than the next (strict taboo not to compare salaries for that very reason).
Now, unions arose in response to the situation you describe. Employers who had a monopoly on jobs and therefore paid pitiful wages. Unions than formed to create a counter-- they had the monopoly on the workers. So, workers in unions don’t negotiate their salaries individually-- but they are negotiated. Unfortunately the downside as unions became more powerful was they often became more interested in perpetuating the union’s existence and paying the union office holders a lot, vice representing the worker’s interests. Or getting involved in political issues not related to the workers at all.
So, should part-time single workers be paid less? Well, shouldn’t that kind of be up to them? As a high-schooler I was interested in saving a bit of money towards college, putting gas in my car, buying presents for the family at holidays and a bit of entertainment money. I was willing to work for less because I needed less. Fast food chains in the US were based on a business model matching the fast food chains need for cheap labor not requiring much training and therefore a tolerance for high turnover rates with a pool of workers with little skill, low income needs, and poor work habits due to inexperience. It was a win-win.
Raise the wage considerably, automation becomes far more attractive to the business.
I agree that someone shouldn’t open a business unless they can meet the projected payroll. But, they have to have some kind of business model indicating what they can afford to pay to make a profit. Most small business owners put everything on the line, their homes, their life savings, their own effort despite the fact a high percentage will fail. They do so because the risk/reward to them justifies it-- even though the reward of actually making a decent profit for themselves is 5 or 10 years in the future. The employee doesn’t take that risk. So, the higher you raise the minimum the less businesses can actually make a profit and the risk becomes higher to someone considering opening their own. Make it too high, and those folks invest their money instead of creating jobs through opening a business. Or, they will not hire inexperienced folks and take a chance on them, or hire folks with the intention of training them into the job. A plumbing company near me cancelled their apprenticeship program. They will only hire journeyman and above based on the new minimum wage. The cost of training an apprentice is far too high, the company loses too much money since they can’t produce enough.
