What is a decent minimum wage?

[vz71]

Not everyone who wants or is able to go to college has the means to do so. And there’s only so far the skills you learn in the average non-college-education-requiring-job will take most people who hold them.

I would agree that there is a disparity that exists in the opportunity available to people.
However, is it really the job of society to provide the cost of living to these individuals?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to provide for the same opportunity for self improvement and let the individual take responsibility for themselves?

Apart from which, if he already earns enough to support himself from his begging, there isn’t necessarily going to be any motivation for him to ‘do better in the future’.

That is his choice. And the consequences of his choice should not be a mandated burden upon society.

Not all workers are, or should be expected to be, aspiring Bill Gateses or Warren Buffets, and some DO just want to make sure there’s a roof over their heads and food on their tables. Nothing wrong in being someone who works to live rather than living to work.

No, there is not.
I work with an individual that is likely never to advance much further then he already is.
It is his choice and he is currently happy with it.
Of course, this choice of his may eventually come back to bite him. And I fully expect when it does he will alter his behavior accordingly and work towards whatever his changing needs require.

And those who aren’t overweeningly ambitious shouldn’t be SO harshly punished for their comparative lack of ambition that begging is the only way of keeping body and soul together.

I disagree.
Their choice should be their choice.
The consequences of that choice should likewise be theirs to deal with.
The government should not mandate pay to mitigate this. It damages the economy to set artificial standards like that.

 

[LilyM]

Just curious here…
This single wage earner you mention in the example that is supporting the family of 4+ people…
Is he/she earning MW?

I’m talking about the past, and not being American am not au fait with the minimum wage concept.

I will say one thing. Since employers and other wage-setters have figured out that wives and mothers, when they are pressed, will go out to work, with all the detriments that has for children, they have decided that they don’t need to do their job - which should be to ensure that breadwinners can actually support their families on a single full-time wage just as they used to be able to do - any more.

I merely wanted to make the point that it is far from unreasonable to expect that full time wagearners be paid enough to support a family of four at a middle class standard - that in past decades many more of them expected to be, and more importantly WERE, paid enough to do so than today.

Interesting statistic from here in Australia. In the 1940s the average house cost the average worker four times their annual salary. In the early 2000s it was EIGHT times the average annual salary. I imagine the situation isn’t too drastically different in the US.

How can we say wages - minimum wage particularly - are in any way adequate when housing, one of the three basic needs of human beings, has gotten so gosh-darned unaffordable and wages (minimum and other) are noway nohow rising in a manner which keeps up with the cost of this most important, and basic, of needs?

 

[jmcrae]

Just curious here…
This single wage earner you mention in the example that is supporting the family of 4+ people…
Is he/she earning MW?

You have already pointed out yourself that the minimum wage job is the entry-level position for the newly-married man.

If he and his wife have a child in the first year, then he will still be at or only slightly above that level when he is supporting both a wife and a child.

 

[vz71]

You have already pointed out yourself that the minimum wage job is the entry-level position for the newly-married man.

No I have not.
You must have me mistaken for someone that does not understand the argument well.

 

[Phemie]

This makes perfect sense, to me.

It should allow a single person with little or no job experience to take a low-rent bachelor apartment that has basic utilities included (water, sewer, electric), take the bus to work and back, and learn by experience how to work and how to live independently from parents and other relatives.

I work 1/2 time for minimum wage which in this province is $9.50/hr ($10.00/hr starting July 1). I work for the church and have for 12 years. I used to make $2/hr above minimum but minimum has risen over the last 3 years to meet my original salary of $8.00 and surpass it. If I were working to put food on the table and a roof over our heads I would be in dire straights even at that level.

I live in a town with no public transportation, so any job that isn’t around the corner requires a vehicle or at least a possibility of car-pooling. A phone is a must.

The least you will pay for an apartment is $550/mo without utilities. Food is very expensive.

Off topic but right now I’m planning to resign from the job since an artsy job is coming up that I want to apply for. I feel guilty because I doubt that they will find anyone to do this job (parish secretary) for the amount of money they can afford to pay. Minimum wage has as much to do with what the employer can afford as it does on what the employee should be able to afford.

 

[dranzal]

Something I have not heard any advocate for raising the minimum wage answer:

For all of the MW increases in the past couple of decades, why hasn’t the quality of life for these people increased?
Why has the price of goods simply gone up with each increase?

Yes, it is strange that this has not come up.

No, the quality of life for a single income MW earner has not (and will not) change. MW earners do not live in a vacuum.

When there is a mandated MW increase, the employers (responsibly mindful of the bottom line) either have to increase prices or fire employees.

There are vast quantities of MW earners in the country. ALL of those employers increasing prices on goods and services, even only a little, will have a ripple effect on the entire economy as all partakers of said goods and services suddenly need to reduce partaking (further complicating matters) or increase their own revenue by increasing their prices as well (think rents, house prices, power, oil, utilities, etc).

Now, with all these newly inflated prices, is John Doe experiencing a better quality of life? Only on his W-2 (LOL).

Now, if we’re going to improve quality of life for our fellow man, a worthy pursuit and mandated by Christ, why stop at $10? $15? $40,000/year? Goodness, that MW, single earner family really needs $60,000/year just to buy that house they are entitled to.

No, “mandating” a minimum wage is not the answer.

What is the answer?

(submitting post to respond to appropriate post here…)

 

[dranzal]

I’m talking about the past, and not being American am not au fait with the minimum wage concept.

I will say one thing. Since employers and other wage-setters have figured out that wives and mothers, when they are pressed, will go out to work, with all the detriments that has for children, they have decided that they don’t need to do their job - which should be to ensure that breadwinners can actually support their families on a single full-time wage just as they used to be able to do - any more.

I merely wanted to make the point that it is far from unreasonable to expect that full time wagearners be paid enough to support a family of four at a middle class standard - that in past decades many more of them expected to be, and more importantly WERE, paid enough to do so than today.

Interesting statistic from here in Australia. In the 1940s the average house cost the average worker four times their annual salary. In the early 2000s it was EIGHT times the average annual salary. I imagine the situation isn’t too drastically different in the US.

How can we say wages - minimum wage particularly - are in any way adequate when housing, one of the three basic needs of human beings, has gotten so gosh-darned unaffordable and wages (minimum and other) are noway nohow rising in a manner which keeps up with the cost of this most important, and basic, of needs?

In theory, there are X number of middle class jobs available at any given time. At the same time, there are X + ? number of job seekers. Currently, the ? here is very large. This means that employers can offer less and still know there will be someone/anyone willing to do the job for the lower amount. Have you all noticed the decrease in “service” in customer service these days? Many employers have sacrificed genuine good help to the bottom line. That is their right as employers.

Right now, the very large ? number includes legitimate men and women (and girls and boys) as well as illegal immigrants and legal foreigners.

Obviously, if it was made impossible for “Illegal” immigrants to work, the ? would decrease.

If all married women enthusiastically embraced their God-given role as wife and (God willing) mother, a substantial portion of the middle class wage earners would leave their jobs, further decreasing the available labor pool.

This would increase wages naturally as there would be a smaller labor pool for the available jobs.

Further, if companies would hire in America rather than build overseas, wages for Americans would increase.

So, am I saying that Government should mandate all that?

NO…Although they could do a better job enforcing current immigration law.

WE are able to effect change, over time, by deciding which companies to offer our earnings to. It is cliche, but “buy American”. “But but but, those places cost more!” That’s right. They cost more because they are paying your neighbor $12/hour rather that some fella overseas $1.50.

If you are a stay home mom, say it loud and proud, and encourage others who desire to stay home and parent their own children to do so.

We don’t need more gov mandates. We need nothing less than a total PARADIGM SHIFT.

We need Heaven…

 

[lutherlic]

Well, I’m no economist, but the poor in Canada and Europe are much better off than in the States. Canadian unemployment is lower than American unemployment. It’s certainly possible to pay a wage such that a person doesn’t have to work multiple jobs just to scrape by.

Why is it that places like Canada, Scandinavian countries are ranked as better places to live than the US?

The US is a better place to live only if you’re at the very top, which by definition will always be a tiny percentage of society.

Even if every single person is very smart, and very hardworking, until we have robots to do everything for us someone will still have to flip burgers, work construction, work in factories, work in service jobs and so on. Their work is essential to society’s survival and success, they should be paid fairly for it.

I think the jury is still out on how successful Europe’s liberal policies have been. How is Iceland doing lately? Any problems in Greece? I wouldn’t personally rank Canada and European countries as better places to live than the US and am suspect of those making such rankings.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It would depend on market conditions. The government wants your employees to be able to be safely housed (ie: not in an illegal suite where they would burn alive with no escape if there were a fire), pay for utilities, buy groceries, and obtain transportation. A minimum wage would be the wage that provides those basic things.

In some markets, you could do that on $3.00 an hour; in other markets, it might take $8.00 an hour.

Minimum wage is not meant for breadwinners. It’s meant for entry-level positions and/or trainees. Kids.

Like all other stalinist forms of government ‘intervention,’ it harms the very people they claim to want to ‘help.’

 

[vz71]

Minimum wage is not meant for breadwinners. It’s meant for entry-level positions and/or trainees. Kids.

Like all other stalinist forms of government ‘intervention,’ it harms the very people they claim to want to ‘help.’

Truth bears repeating.
See quote above.

 

[cynic]

Something I have not heard any advocate for raising the minimum wage answer:

For all of the MW increases in the past couple of decades, why hasn’t the quality of life for these people increased?
Why has the price of goods simply gone up with each increase?

Maybe because your minimum wage raises only match inflation. Maybe because much of the cost living (like rent, goods made overseas) isn’t tied to the cost of local labour. Maybe because your MW is so low that it’s irrelevant for adults, and therefore small increases pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Darkbloom]

Maybe because your minimum wage raises only match inflation. Maybe because much of the cost living (like rent, goods made overseas) isn’t tied to the cost of local labour. Maybe because your MW is so low that it’s irrelevant for adults, and therefore small increases pretty much irrelevant.

Or maybe the scads of economic data that says MW laws only makes things worse no matter how you slice it are correct, and you simply won’t let go of an idea that gives you the satisfaction of sticking it to the “man.”

Here is a nice, concrete example of what I mean.

 

[sidbrown]

Minimum wage is not meant for breadwinners. It’s meant for entry-level positions and/or trainees. Kids.

Like all other stalinist forms of government ‘intervention,’ it harms the very people they claim to want to ‘help.’

I don;t see what this has to do with Stalin.

 

[Darkbloom]

I don;t see what this has to do with Stalin.

MW law is a minor manifestation of the same impulse that guided Stalin; a vanguard elite presumes to know what is best for everyone and takes from one to give to another by force of arms in furtherance of that vision.

 

[sidbrown]

MW law is a minor manifestation of the same impulse that guided Stalin; a vanguard elite presumes to know what is best for everyone and takes from one to give to another by force of arms in furtherance of that vision.

Why don’t you also mention Hitler on this? And while we are at it, let’s throw in Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot.

 

[jmcrae]

MW law is a minor manifestation of the same impulse that guided Stalin; a vanguard elite presumes to know what is best for everyone and takes from one to give to another by force of arms in furtherance of that vision.

No one is proposing “force of arms.” Don’t be ridiculous. If you want to hire someone under the table and pay him less than minimum wage, no one is going to come after you. Yes, it’s illegal, but it won’t be enforced. People do this all the time; it’s how illegal aliens get jobs in this country.

 

[PJM]

=jmcrae;6538581]It would depend on market conditions. The government wants your employees to be able to be safely housed (ie: not in an illegal suite where they would burn alive with no escape if there were a fire), pay for utilities, buy groceries, and obtain transportation. A minimum wage would be the wage that provides those basic things.

In some markets, you could do that on $3.00 an hour; in other markets, it might take $8.00 an hour.

Actually I’m unsure if there is such a thing?

Theory and charity say it ought to be a living wage. But is this feasible?

 

[Darkbloom]

Why don’t you also mention Hitler on this? And while we are at it, let’s throw in Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot.

This is a classic move known as the straw man. Instead of explain how the taxing authority of the government isn’t predicated on the force of arms - because it obviously is - you instead misrepresent the argument so as not to face it.

 

[Darkbloom]

No one is proposing “force of arms.” Don’t be ridiculous. If you want to hire someone under the table and pay him less than minimum wage, no one is going to come after you. Yes, it’s illegal, but it won’t be enforced. People do this all the time; it’s how illegal aliens get jobs in this country.

But it is perpetuated by the force of arms. You admitted as much when you called it illegal. I’ve known several people who have been brought to penury by running afoul of tax law.

Unreported employment carries stiff penalties, and as a result of illegal immigration, the laws have become more stringent and better enforced. Tennessee has one such law that springs to mind.

Bottom line, all law is underwritten by the force of arms. Governments are by definition the institution that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. That monopoly, by rights, should be utilized as little as possible.

 

[sidbrown]

This is a classic move known as the straw man. Instead of explain how the taxing authority of the government isn’t predicated on the force of arms - because it obviously is - you instead misrepresent the argument so as not to face it.

The fact is that the minimum wage has nothing to do with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot.