Honestly: the minimum wage does need to go up

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

This post got me thinking.

I am firmly in favor of:

A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics

While the OP I linked to is not exactly dishonest, it's not exactly honest either.
And this is not to put flak upon the poster there, but it's an example of political rhetoric that is used to leverage one side of a conversation, ignoring nuance.

the graphic in the linked to OP:

1) Doesn't seem to take into account state laws that raise min wage over fed laws
2) Doesn't take into account the vast difference in housing throughout a state

My objection is more with 2 than 1. 1 is easy to take care of, but 2 is not easy.

New York City is WAYYYY more expensive than Rochester or Buffalo, NY; or a large number of other places within the state I could name. Yet, this graphic gives us a number, presumably an average. But that average is way skewed. But how else should they do it? Give us on graphic for NYC and another for the rest of NY State? That wouldn't work either, because then you'd need to break it down for other cities and so on. So what do we do?

We must talk about things in the big picture without getting bogged down in details, otherwise we will have to talk for eons before we can understand what needs to be done. So while I agree that the min wage needs to go up, across the US, I have a problem with the info-graphics created to support that argument. They lack nuance, and as such, are deceiving. Even if they don't mean to be, and are honestly doing the best they can to compile and sort the data, the inevitability of misleading data is going to doom us all.

That said.
Happy saint patty's day.
Was I drunk when I wrote this? You decide.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So what's your argument for raising the minimum wage?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oh, ya know, the standard argument:

people working 40 hours a weeks shouldn't be below the poverty line (and from the conservative angle: shouldn't be in need of food stamps to feed their children)

Do you have any argument against the minimum wage that wasn't used back when the minimum wage was first put into place?
Tired arguments, all of them.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

In the 1930s it was common for a dock to employ hundreds if not thousands of workers to load and unload cargo. That was before shipping containers made it faster and easier to unload cargo. With the advent of shipping containers a global boom followed... and untold hundreds of thousands of workers were fired.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if we just increased the wage of those workers. We'd have literally hundreds of thousands of people across America earning untold tens of thousands of dollars a year. We'd have TRILLIONS more in income.

Clearly this is the best course of action. We need to ban shipping containers.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

I almost think that the prices of some cities are the way they are to keep so-called "undesirables" out. I know it probably just boils down to bad old-fashioned greed, but one begins to wonder.

The income gap between rich and poor needs to be made smaller, and there needs to be a cap on how many times greater the top salaries are from the bottom salaries in a corporation or other business. The illusion that wealth is infinite needs to be eliminated.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

it's sooo backfires every time because what they don't realize is that those same "undesirables" will live just about anywhere and make do with just about anything if/when required. the end result is a HUGE gap between haves and have-nots :/

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Speaking as an undesirable myself, I'd rather feed off that high-class garbage of capital communities then the sludge that the working class disposes of.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I know here in NH, it's because of our weird tax base. Because we have no sales or income taxes, we rely heavily on local and state property taxes. That means that the basic cost of living goes up. However, it also means that, in general, the 20-30% thing isn't as accurate for us, as you take that slice of income devoted to sales taxes and the like, and apply it to housing.

slippery slope is slippery

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Hi I'm a businessman. Your tab just went up 15%.

Thanks for helping us pay for the new minimum wage.

Think about that. You got, say a 12% raises, but it results in a, say, -15% buying power factor. I am not in business to pay people a living, I am here to generate profitable revenue. Otherwise what is the motive to be in business?

If you force me as a businessman to be creative with commissions, bonuses and performance bumps, then you keep everyone at an arbitrary low level, and competency takes a back seat to financial fit.

Example: Let's say the min wage is $20 a hour. Now, I can get a drooler at minimum wage to sit there and do a job half ass, or I can pay someone competent. But they won't work for minimum wage, and they should not have to!

ETA: oops didn't mean to hit button. So the bottom line (sic.) is that this is a perfectly acceptable way to screw up the market that dictates what semi-skilled or training labor cost.

One of the down sides of business; one has to look at the whole thing, and not get boggled down in the wants and needs of everyone. I can already tell you that every person that works for me or perhaps you thinks they are underpaid and deserve more.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Labor costs represent a vanishingly small portion of overall cost. So even if you increase minimum wage say, 15%, it will only result in a like 2-3% increase in the cost of the good to produce (and that is in high labor industry like food service).

And businesses will not fire people, that is a fucking myth, they will always keep as many people as they need to meet demand.

Raising minimum wage would also have a positive pressure on demand, so it is even likely that businesses will need to hire more people.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I am not in business to pay people a living

You should not be allowed to have employees. Work yourself into the ground, don't get rich off the backs of slaves.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

There's hardly any employees left who do a "half-assed" job. Most job requirements these days for low-paying jobs are nearly super-human. I know people who have to work longer hours with much greater responsibility for only a fraction of the pay.

The ones who do "half-assed" jobs are the ones in political sinecures or with relatives who have made sure they got the position.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Was I drunk when I wrote this?

Probably, because it's slightly more rational than you usually are. ;)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Current minimum wage when adjusted for inflation is lower than it was in 1964.

1968 minimum wage would be $10.47 if adjusted for inflation.

We're paying less and less for people to do work, but expecting productivity to go up.

But hey who needs to increase minimum wage? It might make my 8 dollar beer cost $0.02 more.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

dang! 8 bucks for one bottle of beer?? the highest i've seen is about 5 bucks (imports included)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

You have digressed into so much hyperbole, it's gotten difficult to take you seriously.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's hard to determine a federal minimum wage that accounts for what constitutes a living wage where you live. Each state, hell each city or town it's going to be different.

But I think we can establish a baseline where the poorest can get a living wage, where the person in the most rural town can support themselves, where teenagers helping their family or adults down on their luck are able to pull themselves out of a disadvantaged situation. At the very least, it should be increased to account for inflation, otherwise the poorest are literally getting poorer.

living wage/minimum wage= NOT the same thing

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

where are those rural people going to work?

By definition..I mean..come on... lets keep these things firmly grounded in reality.

Moonshine, marijuana or meth, that is about it unless you have a specific in-demand skill, or your family is one of the wealth land owners or mercantile class of the county. None of those revenue streams requires a minimum wage.

Just sayin...

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

After looking over many of the comments (66 at the time this was written), there are other aspects to this that people do not take into account.

1. The expense of working. Yeah, I hear everyone talking about the business owner who is hiring me to do the work. Yeah, I understand that running at a loss is bad news, and may lead to me needing a job. But when I am saddled with keeping a vehicle running, with gas quickly approaching $4.00 again, $7.25 an hour just is not going to cut it.

2. In 2009, the minimal wage increased to its current level. I can certainly see prices for some goods increasing, in many places, but here is what I observed. The price of DVD's at most stores stayed the same. The boots that I buy yearly never changed prices, not so much as one red penny. Food prices increased, gas increased, parts to keep my vehicle running increased. This increase in price occurred almost 2 weeks before I was paid that increase.

3. That wage increase, the whole whopping $.25 an hour afforded me the ability to buy a Big Mac at McDonald's every two weeks, if I was a good little boy and saved up my change. Think about this, .25 cents an hour is only 10 bucks, per 40 hour week per head (10 people 100 bucks per 40 hour week). Oh wow we are breakin the bank here boys.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to add some after thoughts to my post.

When I brought up the parts for my vehicle, I want you all to understand that they are made in China, Taiwan, Korea, India, and Mexico, not in the United States. I do not think they have minimal wage laws in those countries.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

1. no one is forcing you to drive a car unless you use that vehicle specifically FOR work, in which case you had better be getting compensated.

2. What's your point? The longer a commodity is for sale, the more of the up-front manufacturing and R&D costs are recouped. This is why prices stay the same, or, say, in the case of flat screens, have actually dropped in price, as older models are resold and recycled back into the consumer stream.

3. My point exactly. Let us not talk of minimum wages let us talk of living wages. Still, a totally arbitrary number, but more to the point of need, agreed?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'But when I am saddled with keeping a vehicle running, with gas quickly approaching $4.00 again, $7.25 an hour just is not going to cut it.'

If you can't afford to run a car[business] because you're too inefficient maybe you should run a car[business].

'The boots that I buy yearly never changed prices, not so much as one red penny. Food prices increased, gas increased, parts to keep my vehicle running increased.'

Look at where those things incur the most cost to make.

'When I brought up the parts for my vehicle, I want you all to understand that they are made in China, Taiwan, Korea, India, and Mexico, not in the United States. I do not think they have minimal wage laws in those countries.'

It costs money for fuel and to pay for transport.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Let's try real numbers and see if it works.

Say a food service business makes $50K a month. Average labor is about 20%, or $10K. For argument's sake, say 60% of employees have been there long enough to make more than minimum wage, and 40% are new and making minimum. Turnover is fairly high in food service.

Let's assume a minimum wage hike of 33%, from $7.50 (example only) to $10/hr. Forty percent of total labor just increased 33% (plus the employer's portion of employment taxes, which are based on wages, but for simplicity we'll discard that). If hours worked remain the same, the monthly labor is now $11320, or 23%.

Now some of the employees who were there long enough to get raises, but not long enough to make more than $10, also get raised to the minimum wage. We'll assume half of those remaining were making $9/hr. Eleven percent increase for 30% of the labor costs is another $330. But now they aren't happy that the new kid in the door is making the same as they are, so we'll bump them up to $11 to keep them. Labor is now $11980, or 24%.

Uh oh. The star players of your team are just as unhappy that their hard work that garnered them $10+ an hour now means bumpkis. I guess they can just suck it up, or leave. But if you want to keep them, better take it up a notch and raise the remaining 30% to $12/hr. A twenty percent increase for them brings labor to $12580 a month, or a whopping 25 percent. That's unsustainable in the food service industry.

Too bad the inexperienced 16 year old just got a 33% raise, and your lead worker who has stuck with you for 3 years and could almost run the store got stuck with 20%. If life were fair, everyone across the board would get the same percentage raise. And if they did, somewhere in the P&L you'd have to come up with an additional $3300 to get labor costs back under control.

So just raise the prices 7%. A family meal out that usually ran $20 is now $21.40. But gas prices are rising, and the hours at the factory still aren't up to par even though they're way past paying minimum wage, so they forgo the drinks and get water -- a very high margin item, so not only are not making your additional 7%, it's not a cost effective loss. So that's not working. Plus, they complain about it and only come in three times a week instead of four now. Or they go to your competition, who has a dollar menu.

You try coupons, which works a bit better. Or maybe it doesn't, because more people come in but they spend less or just as much, and it takes an extra person to keep up with the additional business, so labor goes up accordingly.

The only sure fire way to make up that additional labor cost is to reduce the number of man hours to get to that 20%. That means asking more of your employees, maybe opening or closing with one less person, or letting people go entirely. Three thousand dollars in man hours could be two full timers, or four or more part-timers. Your higher earners are more efficient so even if they make more per hour, they produce more. Sure, they may burn out from overworking, but the electric bill isn't going to come down, and there wasn't enough rain to keep the tomatoes cheap, and your food vendor just added a delivery surcharge to cover his increasing fuel cost, and the state is upping the cost of worker's comp, and then there's the corporate income tax changes, so... something has to give.

The bank doesn't care how you get the money to make your loan payment every month. You just pay it, or you close down.

And we all know that never happens, does it.

*Caveat: all calculations done at 4am. Not responsible for errors while sleeping at the keyboard.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're good at this.

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

A) A higher minimum wage in the whole US, and my home state of NY
B) Honesty in politics

How about we start paying all elected officials minimum wage? It seems like a start.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That's....a little too much, in my book.
Min wage should be that, minimum.

I'd sooner tie their pay to the average or median income of their respective districts.
Cause I do admit that raising the minimum wage too much too quickly could cause problems (raising it to $20/hour tomorrow wouldn't work)

But making they're pay tied to the average means that when they're district feels a pinch, so do they.

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Wow I'm late...

Well I will just throw this out there to because it's something I believe in--rather than begging the ruling class to enact reforms like raising the minimum wage, I would rather see the wholesale refusal of wage slavery combined with some form of consensus worker autogestion/self-employment for those who prefer and free exchange.

Just saying.