Stupid California!

[Hammster]

Let's try this another way: Do you think that an employer is doing a favor for the person he hires?

Not at all.

 

[Hammster]

Just...what? What theft? What on earth are you talking about?

Forcing someone to pay another person more than you think the job is worth is theft.

 

[Bradskii]

Forcing someone to pay another person more than you think the job is worth is theft.

If the job isn't worth a living wage then it's not a job that's worth having. If you can't do business without paying someone an amount of money that they can survive on then you shouldn't be in business. Period.

But we'll note that you think that paying an honest days wage for an honest days work is 'theft'.

 

[Hammster]

If the job isn't worth a living wage then it's not a job that's worth having.

I agree.

If you can't do business without paying someone an amount of money that they can survive on then you shouldn't be in business. Period.

Where is that written?

But we'll note that you think that paying an honest days wage for an honest days work is 'theft'.

If you feel you need to distort what I said, I guess I can’t stop you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You can't live where you can't afford to live. The Australian minimum wage is about US$600 a week. That is pretty much what the weekly rent is for a small apartment in Bondi. So if you get a job here and you're on minimum wage, you don't live here.


Sydney it varies a great deal. So if you earn minimum wage then you can only live where you can afford to live. You don't pay someone a minimum wage double what the norm is because she wants to live somewhere near the beach.

That's where some cultural changes would have to occur in the US in order for what you're describing to have any efficacy.

We have a generation of what I'd call "the new left" now in the US that wouldn't accept what you just said as an answer.

They don't want just a living wage, they want a living wage that specifically covers the exact neighborhood/area they want to live in.


Perhaps you don't have that issue in Australia.


We have people who think not only should they be able to live in the exact city they want to live in, but think they should be able to so via the exact kind of job they want to do. NYC is full of struggling "freelance artists" and "freelance writers" (and working part time gigs on the side to make ends meet) who insist on living in one of the most expensive cities in the country because "it matches their vibe", and then complain when they still need a roommate at 32.

"I should be able to live in a loft in NYC working at a vintage record shop, and if I can't, that must a systemic failure of some sort"

When in fact, some of those folks probably could afford their own apartment and expenses with money leftover if they chose to live in a neighborhood where (gasp), they may have a few neighbors that don't agree with them politically.

 

[Bradskii]

Where is that written?

It's in my post. I wrote it.

If you feel you need to distort what I said, I guess I can’t stop you.

Then you think that an honest days work does deserve an honest days pay. Hey, we agree again.

 

[Bradskii]

That's where some cultural changes would have to occur in the US in order for what you're describing to have any efficacy.

We have a generation of what I'd call "the new left" now in the US that wouldn't accept what you just said as an answer.

They don't want just a living wage, they want a living wage that specifically covers the exact neighborhood/area they want to live in.

It's not just them that wants it. It's you as well. You've been arguing for it for a few posts already. It's you that doesn't accept what I'm saying. Don't slide the argument over to the 'new left'. I'm not debating this with them. I'm debating it with you.

And it's not a 'cultural change' that's required. People can't afford to live where they can't afford to live. That's pretty obvious, no? If they can't afford to live somewhere expensive then they have to move somewhere where it's cheaper. You don't need to convince people to do this. You don't need a 'cultural change'. If they can't pay the rent on a beachside apartment because they're on minimum wages then despite the 'vibe' that they'll be missing they will, automatically, with no prompting from you or anyone else, move to where they can can afford the rent.

This has nothing to do with minimum wage per se. This is just a fact of life. That there should be a minimum wage still stands. The fact that someone on said minimum wage has to move out to the sticks is a given. You don't pay the dude twice the minimum wage because he wants to live in Chelsea.

 

[Hammster]

It's in my post. I wrote it.

Oh. So it’s just your preference.

Then you think that an honest days work does deserve an honest days pay. Hey, we agree again.

Of course. Whatever is agreed upon between the employee and employer, as long as both side honor the agreement.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course. Whatever is agreed upon between the employee and employer, as long as both side honor the agreement.

So as long as the employer wants a living wage then the employer can agree to pay it (I can't see where many employers would say 'Hey, just pay me whatever you think is best for you and your bottom line'). So that's just fine by me.

But...what happens when the employer wants the minimum wage that will allow him to survive, to be able to afford the basics of life, and the employer says no? Any suggestions?

 

[rambot]

Here's the conundrum, not all businesses (or billionaires) shared equally in those gains. Some businesses may have seen a windfall of cash, others may have lost a bit, others may have had a flatline year.

That's where it gets tricky...

Let's say "MachineCorp" has a rich CEO, and saw record profits, is paying their warehouse workers $17/hour, and the CEO padded his pocket and that of the executive team with the gains.

"Machines-USA" also has a rich CEO, but had a flatline year, is forecasting some losses in the upcoming year, and also pays their warehouse workers $17/hour.


Just because "MachineCorp" is in a financial situation to raise all of their workers from $17 up to $25 and could easily sustain it, "Machines-USA" isn't in that situation.


Here's where the tough options come in.

1) You could mandate a minimum wage increase of $25/hour for all warehouse workers, it won't hurt MachineCorp, but Machines-USA will likely have to resort to layoffs, thereby making them less competitive, and giving MachineCorp even more power.

2) You could try to target it to a company-level where the former has to give their employees a raise, but the latter is allowed to maintain the status quo, but that would also make people want to jump ship and go to MachineCorp, again... giving them more power.


Realistically speaking, we can't tailor national wage policy to what Amazon, Walmart, and McDonald's could afford to pay their employees if a figurative gun was to their heads.

Because if you mandate a wage that only Amazon, Walmart, and McDonald's could "technically afford to pay their employees", in 10 years, those will be the only 3 companies left.

Walmart and Amazon could afford to pay all their retail associates and warehouse workers $25/hour and still likely enjoy some decent profits. "Sal's Hardware" or "Joe's Country Grocery Market" can not...

Even within our current structure/system, we see small and medium sized businesses having to fold and having their market share gobbled up by the big players. Wage policy that mandates hourly rates that only the big players can afford to pay (while well-intentioned) only serves to accelerate that process.


In short, if you don't want the only store to be Walmart, and you don't want to have to work at Walmart 5-10 years from now, it's probably best not to write a rulebook that only Walmart can financially afford to abide by.

Dare I suggest the Wal-Mart should not be in that position?

 

[rambot]

Oh. So it’s just your preference.

Of course. Whatever is agreed upon between the employee and employer, as long as both side honor the agreement.

Thou shalt not covet.

Thou shall not project. I don't need that money. My students do.

Don't you covet the government support offered I student loan forgiveness?

 

[Hammster]

Don't you covet the government support offered I student loan forgiveness?

No.

 

[Pommer]

The time is a-ripening for to have a general strike in the United States.

What an “interesting time” that’ll be!

 

[BCP1928]

The time is a-ripening for to have a general strike in the United States.

What an “interesting time” that’ll be!

We'll have to wait until the white Christian part of the working class realizes that they've been betrayed. Then it will be Solidarity time.

 

[RoBo1988]

You know how these fast food corporations could save money so that their workers could be happier? What about lowering franchising and start up costs?
What if fast food franchise don't work because the bloated expensive happenings at the top and to shareholder dividends and payouts.

The top share holder of Dairy Queen is Warren Buffett. He likes to go on cable news, and say he'd love to pay more taxes etc., and yet he employs lawyers to do the opposite.

When I was in my teenage years (1970's), fast food jobs were for those in school, part timers, etc. And no one thought you would make a " living wage" from one.

What changed?

 

[BCP1928]

The top share holder of Dairy Queen is Warren Buffett. He likes to go on cable news, and say he'd love to pay more taxes etc., and yet he employs lawyers to do the opposite.

When I was in my teenage years (1970's), fast food jobs were for those in school, part timers, etc. And no one thought you would make a " living wage" from one.

What changed?

The growing number of adults who have no option but a fast food job.

 

[RoBo1988]

The growing number of adults who have no option but a fast food job.

Why? Could it be our elected "leaders" sold us out on our lower skilled manufacturing jobs, shipping them out of the country?

 

[BCP1928]

Why? Could it be our elected "leaders" sold us out on our lower skilled manufacturing jobs, shipping them out of the country?

Elected leaders don't ship manufacturing jobs out of the country. Manufacturers do that, but it's a moot point. Low skill manufacturing jobs are rapidly being replaced by automation, both here and abroad. Manufacturing is returning to this country but the jobs are not. The jobs are gone.

 

[RoBo1988]

Elected leaders don't ship manufacturing jobs out of the country. Manufacturers do that, but it's a moot point. Low skill manufacturing jobs are rapidly being replaced by automation, both here and abroad. Manufacturing is returning to this country but the jobs are not. The jobs are gone.

NAFTA opened the door for our jobs to leave.

 

[BCP1928]

NAFTA opened the door for our jobs to leave.

OK