The Minimum Wage: Putting Some Myths to Rest

[decocker 7,198]

I take it you were being sarcastic, but you're right.

The basic assumption of the article is to define low wage jobs as those which don't allow a single wage earner to keep a family of 4 above the poverty line. Yet there is no data supplied which even indicates how many of these "low wage earners" are the single breadwinners in a family of 4. Some of them are certainly teenagers and college students. Others are single adults. Many are in families with multiple wage earners. It's like defining undersized wood as that which won't hold up a house and then lamenting the amount of undersized wood being used. Without data about how much of that undersized wood is holding up houses rather than being used in banisters, the whole premise is a veritable stretch.

For those that are actually trying to support a family of four by asking if you want fries with that, yes you're stupid. I'm not sure whether the primary evidence that you are stupid is that you can't get a better job or that you actually think that working at McDonald's is a viable job, but either of those should be sufficient evidence.

of course i was being sarcastic. and most certainly about just finding another job..

i don't know how someone supporting a family of four could manage working a fast food retail job. i know a single mother who is supporting her four children on a little over thirteen dollars an hour, in the service sector. she is always on the brink of complete disaster. how she's managed thus far without completely giving in and living off welfare is beyond me. i would have caved years ago..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's a myth to believe that people working minimum wage jobs are either too stupid or too lazy to find better paying work. The reality is that most of the job growth in this country consists of low wage jobs - and it's not just working at McDee's, but places like Walmart which happens to be the biggest retailer and one of the largest employers.

Would it be sustainable if those low wage earners were paid an extra for four or five dollars an hour?

[SMR 368]

The problems introduced by increasing the minimum wage actually come not only from the increased demand on employers and the likely increase in price for the products that those employers sell. If you somehow were magically able to insure that everyone who wanted a job was able to make $60k/year, the increased buying power would cause prices to skyrocket on things like houses, used cars, and much more. Things cost money because there aren't enough of them for everyone to have as much as they want. In essence, that is why we have money. Of course, this doesn't apply to all things equally since some things have a more flexible supply. If suddenly there was demand for 1 billion more laptops or iPhones, for instance, suppliers could get their act together pretty quickly and not much would change after a short period where companies ramped up to meet the increased demand. Prices might actually go down. But most markets are less flexible. If everyone is able to afford a nice house, the housing market will climb quickly. We've already seen where that goes.

In such a period of increasing demand and prices, it will be those with skills and knowledge that are in demand and able to in turn demand higher salaries. And we'll end up where we started except all the numbers will have more zeroes on them. If this seems like an exaggeration, consider that if you pay 10 million people just $5 more per hour for a year of full-time work, that's over $100 billion dollars. Give every worker in America that size of raise and you're talking over 1.5 trillion dollars in raises. That's 1/10th of the GDP. And the OP is talking about $20 raises. Of course, some people were making more than $60k to begin with, but the majority are making significantly less. The average raise to get everyone to making at least $30/hour would probably be much more than $5/hour.

Of course, the great dream is that somehow this money will be sucked away from the greedy rich and distributed to the poor folk. Thus, you keep the amount of money the same. But even if you achieve that, the amount of money being spent will go up because rich people hold onto the money more. So the end result is that everything you want to buy will cost more.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of course, the great dream is that somehow this money will be sucked away from the greedy rich and distributed to the poor folk.

Well, the opposite has happened over the last few decades. What labor organizations are arguing is for a more equitable pay scale, to where all wages increase proportionally across the board as they should have. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Karee 4,191]

Let's start with a useful benchmark of a low-wage job as one that keeps a full-time worker and their family of four at or below the federal poverty threshold - $23,005 per year, or $11.06/hour in 2011.

So a family of four means one working person in the household, and 3 that do not work. So maybe 1 parent and 3 children. Or 2 parents and 2 children with one of the parents not working.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

i don't understand why people who work low paying jobs think they should be able to afford housing, utlities, food and transportation. duh, get a better job.

or smart phones and 100dollar Blue jeans

[RGinWA 816]

Paid slavery is the answer.

Pay the slave just enough to get by, have them use state assistance for food and healthcare to supplement their lack of income, reap billions in profits and then blame the slave for not getting non-slave wage employment?

Wait, that's Walmart's business model...strike that.

[GandD 5,966]

So a family of four means one working person in the household, and 3 that do not work. So maybe 1 parent and 3 children. Or 2 parents and 2 children with one of the parents not working.

Its probably cheaper for a wife to stay home and take care of the kids than work a minimum wage job and attempt to pay for two kids in day care (assuming the kids aren't in school yet)

ETA

Or the husband. Whatever.

Edited June 7, 2013 by GandD

[Bugs 455]

There was a time 50 years ago when, if you had a job, any job, you could support your family with it. This alone should be proof that setting a wage standard does not destroy an economy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Karee 4,191]

There was a time 50 years ago when, if you had a job, any job, you could support your family with it. This alone should be proof that setting a wage standard does not destroy an economy.

Times change.

[GandD 5,966]

Effectively, our entire society as it stands now is one giant pyramid scheme.

COMPLETELY AGREE!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

California to Wal-Mart: Pay Better and Stop Forcing Taxpayers to Subsidize Your Profits

For several decades, “welfare queens” like Walmart and other large retail operators have been cheating the American taxpayer on the way to amassing record corporate profits by forcing us to foot the bill for the health and nutrition of their indefensibly underpaid employees.

Surely making Sam Walton turn in his grave, his heirs pay Walmart employees such measly wages that they are forced to turn to government subsidized benefits like Medicaid, food stamp programs, and subsidized housing in order to keep themselves and their families from starving or dying due to lack of healthcare. Walmart doesn’t seem to care, and as long as they can continue to cut cost and increase profits, their capitalist concerns do not take into account the fact that the American people are subsidizing the wages of their employees.

Luckily, Americans all around the nation are beginning to learn about Walmart’s incessant demand for corporate welfare, and now the state of California has made it loud and clear that Walmart and other large retailers have to start taking responsibility for their own employees, even if it means a reduction to their bloated margins.

Supported by unions, physicians, and consumer groups, a very progressive piece of legislation is now making its way to the California legislature. The proposed regulation would fine employers like Walmart up to $6000 for every full-time employee that registers for California’s version of Medicaid, Medi-Cal.

Why $6000? Well, a report released last week by the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, estimated that the cost of Walmart’s refusal to provide a living wage for their employees costs the American taxpayer about $5,815 per employee for each year of employment.

Accurate and timely data on Wal-Mart’s wage and employment practices is not always readily available. However, occasional releases of demographic data from public assistance programs can provide useful windows into the scope of taxpayer subsidization of Wal-Mart. After analyzing data released by Wisconsin’s Medicaid program, the Democratic staff of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce estimates that a single 300- person Wal-Mart Supercenter store in Wisconsin likely costs taxpayers at least

$904,542 per year

and could cost taxpayers

up to $1,744,590 per year

– about $5,815 per employee.

Says Sonya Schwartz, program director at the National Academy for State Academy for State Health Policy, “There are concerns that employers will be gaming this new system and taking less and less responsibility for their workers. This may make employers think twice.”

http://occupydemocrats.com/california-to-wal-mart-pay-better-and-stop-forcing-taxpayers-to-subsidize-your-profits/

Edited June 7, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[decocker 7,198]

or smart phones and 100dollar Blue jeans

i don't know anyone who fits these descriptors nature boy - that's all you.

[catknit 144]

Its probably cheaper for a wife to stay home and take care of the kids than work a minimum wage job and attempt to pay for two kids in day care (assuming the kids aren't in school yet)

ETA

Or the husband. Whatever.

This is true for a large portion of the population. Working just to pay child care costs makes no fiscal sense for many people who work in the service sector or general labor. In many cases, there is little or no room for advancement so staying on to earn more experience is pretty much worthless.

The only place where keeping both parents working is when an excellent benefits package is available to the low wage earner...but that is completely employer dependent. For some families, a generous medical insurance plan will outweigh the net $10-75/wk the parent makes while sending the kid(s) off to daycare - or - possibly, a company that still has a traditional pension plan or very generous 401(k) match. But, for many, it completely doesn't pay to have both parents working. I saw this all the time while managing a general labor force - but only in traditional families [married parents]. Those not married usually had subsidies to fall back on [section 8, SNAP, state medicaid for the kids] and some did play the hours game to make sure they were under the allocated amounts to keep their benefits. But, it made sense to them- working extra hours may have only garnered them an extra $10k/yr in pay but staying on the subsidies was the equivalent of $25k/yr. That's a whole other thing though...

We stepped knee-deep into this with our baby. I moved from the corporate world [pre-pregnancy] to a social services agency working heavy part time [32 hrs/wk]. I went back to work last month only because we were able to find child care that cost roughly 50% of my take home pay. I would not have done so if the childcare were more expensive because it would not have made fiscal sense for our family. I did return because of an impending promotion, though estimated for a couple years down the road. [Of course, as of last night, this is all water-under-the-bridge thinking as the hubster just took a job 100 miles away and we're relocating ].