The Minimum Wage Tradeoff

[mark46]

There’s no disagreement. She wants to be home.

The primary motive is marriage and family. She wants to homeschool. But living on one income is challenging. I encouraged her to pursue self-employment instead. She can work from home and contribute to the household while homeschooling. It provides more flexibility and won’t burden her future spouse financially.

~bella

I apologize for the misunderstanding. You had mentioned different priorities.

 

[rambot]

The problem isn't the marginal differences between wages and inflation, which is easily navigable. The problem is the plethora of things that people believe are necessary for their happiness and the wages they think they should have in order to buy these things right now.

Nah. I know that's the "boomer" outlook. But it isn't the case.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nah. I know that's the "boomer" outlook. But it isn't the case.

Boomers? What do them young whippersnappers know?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually most earn above the minimum wage.

Minimum wage in America: How many people are earning $7.25 an hour?

We need to reduce immigration from Latin America if we want to raise wages.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually most earn above the minimum wage.

Minimum wage in America: How many people are earning $7.25 an hour?

We need to reduce immigration from Latin America if we want to raise wages.

It's an embarrassment that there are still so many.

 

[Ken-1122]

Your math, your memory, and your understanding of what drives inflation are all faulty.

First, for someone at the bottom of the wage scale, minimum wage hikes can't cause all prices to increase in a way that wipes out all of their increased purchasing power. It's mathematically impossible due to the fact that prices are driven by a combination of factors, some of which are entirely independent of wages.

Second, from the way you tell your story, the growth rate of your wages was not exceeding the rate of inflation - it was keeping pace with both inflation and the minimum wage, even if it preceded the minimum wage hike by a year. The only time the growth of the minimum wage has ever exceeded the rate of inflation over more than a year or two was in the 1950's-60's. If this is the time period we're talking about, then your buying power was increasing, even if you didn't realize it. If, however, we're talking about a different time period, then what you're basing your entire perspective on is a single short-term fluctuation, not the broader trend of your buying power staying roughly steady or decreasing.
The US minimum wage through the years

The inflation rate accounts for all prices, not just what I was involved in. Most of the cost increase resulting from minimum wage is from business that depend on minimum wage work; like service industry, cheap restaurants, etc. business I was purchasing from during that time. Yeah; the price of more expensive things like cars, new clothes, gas prices or other things I was unable to afford may not have gone up, but I didn’t notice. I did notice the prices at the McDonalds I worked at always went up when minimum wage went up, and I still notice the prices at such places increasing every time the minimum wage increases today

 

[iluvatar5150]

Actually most earn above the minimum wage.

How much above?

That's the question that statements like yours tend to ignore. Yes, most earn above the minimum, but there are a lot of people who make only a little above it who'd be helped by a large wage hike.

We need to reduce immigration from Latin America if we want to raise wages.

Why not just increase the wage floor?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why not just increase the wage floor?

I agree. Let's raise it and see what happens. It might work out very well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How much above?

That's the question that statements like yours tend to ignore. Yes, most earn above the minimum, but there are a lot of people who make only a little above it who'd be helped by a large wage hike.

A dollar above is $160 per month bump. Pretty good I'd say.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's an embarrassment that there are still so many.

Which, Latinos or minimum wage earners?

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm guessing that a "living wage" is one that allows one to buy whatever shiny objects catch their fancy.

You don't go from minimum wages to high paying jobs overnight. You work your way up.

There a lot of good paying jobs out there but they require education and training.

living wage is exactly what it says, able to have a home and food which many places can't afford. And again, where are these magickal jobs that could fill all the people that need living wages if they just go out there and find them?

 

[Ringo84]

Then quit asking me to financially support how you live your life

I'm not.

Get a 2nd job if necessary, rent a room instead of an apartment, buy a bus ticket instead of a car, buy 2nd hand clothes instead of new clothes, and take advantage of government support programs where you can

Let me make it clear that I'm not specifically talking about myself, but in general about poor people in this country.

Why should people have to get a second job to barely eke out a living?

Even your Jesus said; “the poor you will have with you always” ….. he was right.

One of many differences between "my" Jesus and you is that Jesus wanted to actually help the poor instead of washing his hands because "Well, they'll always be with us, so whatareyagonna do?".
Ringo

 

[loveofourlord]

My point is, my wage was increasing faster than the rate of inflation; minimum wage prevented this from happening.

It was going up faster then the CURRENT, but your already like 50% lower pay.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

living wage is exactly what it says, able to have a home and food which many places can't afford. And again, where are these magickal jobs that could fill all the people that need living wages if they just go out there and find them?

Can you provide an example of one of these people, a brief history?

 

[Ringo84]

There are more opportunities today than there were for me, and the same 'rules for survival and success' still apply.

Live at home if you can.
Work as much as you can.
Live Spartan like.
Stay out of debt.
Save as much as you can, for
Higher education or training.
Stay out of trouble.
Stay single until you are sound financially.

Not necessarily disagreeing, and these are fine pieces of advice. But they don't help someone who is already working a minimum wage job and barely affording to make rent and pay for food month by month.

One of two in this thread (not you) seem to want to cast this as an issue of living beyond means and wanting others to "support their lifestyle". My point is that the "luxuries" these people struggle to afford are basics - not trips to Cancun during dangerous ice storms, not a second vacation home, but medications, rent, food, mortgages.
Ringo

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not necessarily disagreeing, and these are fine pieces of advice. But they don't help someone who is already working a minimum wage job and barely affording to make rent and pay for food month by month.

One of two in this thread (not you) seem to want to cast this as an issue of living beyond means and wanting others to "support their lifestyle". My point is that the "luxuries" these people struggle to afford are basics - not trips to Cancun during dangerous ice storms, not a second vacation home, but medications, rent, food, mortgages.
Ringo

In my day we couldn't afford much either. That's why we lived cheap. There were no credit cards in those days either.

I was a low wage worker until I got a meat cutting apprenticeship at the supermarket I had worked at in high school.
I went from $42 per week to $65, nearly a 50 percent jump. If I hadn't been working there at $1.05 per hour I wouldn't have gotten the better paying job, as the company liked to promote from among their employees.

Also, the meat cutters union was much stronger than the grocery workers union so wages were much better. Of course the work was harder and required much more skill as well. Lot of back problems from lifting quarters of beef. I loved that job more than anything I've ever done. Sadly those skills are a thing of the past.

Later I went to work for a landscaping company, just to get outdoors for awhile (I also worked for a 'tree expert' company for a season). Entry level, the sod crew. Hard work, low pay. However I was noticed for my work and promoted to the landscaping crew; easier work, better pay. See how that works?

As the supermarkets were opening all over the place I never had a problem getting back in.

One thing I have always done is to let the opportunities come to me, and they always do because I'm very conscientious about any work I do.

I was also a good looking white guy (privileged I guess).

 

[Shodan]

Only about 4% of the US workforce earns MW. Most of them are not supporting a family, nor even themselves. Most do not live in poor households, either - it is mostly although not entirely teenagers working for their own money, not to put food on the table for their children. Most of the rest are entry level workers in low-skilled jobs, without a work history or things like that.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that an increase in MW to $10.10 an hour would lift many people out of poverty, and also cost about a half-million jobs. (Cite.) Raising it to $15 an hour would likely have even more marked effects. So if the idea is to raise the MW to help people, it is important to recognize that you are helping those people at the expense of others, namely the ones who are unemployed because their labor is worth $7.25 an hour but not $15.

It will impact some industries more than others, of course. Currently the median wage in the childcare industry is $11.65 an hour. Most of the overhead in child care is wages. So a MW of $15 an hour means that the cost of child care is going to go up by nearly a third.

Median income for women in the US is $894 per week, or $22.35/hour. Most families (71%) spend 10% or more of their income on child care. If the cost goes up by a third, and it pretty much has to, women with their children in day care are going to be, in essence, working for less money. The problem of "working to pay the babysitter" is going to become even more acute.

There’s considerable research that shows that the higher the cost of child care, the lower the probability that women will be in the labor force.

Cite.

So we want to help poor people, and women, by driving them out of the workforce, in order to benefit other people.

Thomas Sowell is a famous economist. He said, quite accurately

In economics, there are no solutions - just trade-offs.

Or, more pithily - TANSTAAFL.

Regards,
Shodan

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not.

If you are asking your employer for a "living wage" you are asking for a job to support your chosen lifestyle.

Why should people have to get a second job to barely eke out a living?

Because if you lack the skills to sell your labor at a price you find necessary, a second job might be necessary. What's wrong with working 2 jobs?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Only about 4% of the US workforce earns MW. Most of them are not supporting a family, nor even themselves. Most do not live in poor households, either - it is mostly although not entirely teenagers working for their own money, not to put food on the table for their children. Most of the rest are entry level workers in low-skilled jobs, without a work history or things like that.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that an increase in MW to $10.10 an hour would lift many people out of poverty, and also cost about a half-million jobs. (Cite.) Raising it to $15 an hour would likely have even more marked effects. So if the idea is to raise the MW to help people, it is important to recognize that you are helping those people at the expense of others, namely the ones who are unemployed because their labor is worth $7.25 an hour but not $15.

It will impact some industries more than others, of course. Currently the median wage in the childcare industry is $11.65 an hour. Most of the overhead in child care is wages. So a MW of $15 an hour means that the cost of child care is going to go up by nearly a third.

Median income for women in the US is $894 per week, or $22.35/hour. Most families (71%) spend 10% or more of their income on child care. If the cost goes up by a third, and it pretty much has to, women with their children in day care are going to be, in essence, working for less money. The problem of "working to pay the babysitter" is going to become even more acute.
Cite.

So we want to help poor people, and women, by driving them out of the workforce, in order to benefit other people.

Thomas Sowell is a famous economist. He said, quite accurately

Or, more pithily - TANSTAAFL.

Regards,
Shodan

I read a report some time ago that stated that high school kids who had part time (minimum wage) jobs earned and spent an average of $100 per week on themselves; clothes, games, cars, entertainment, etc. Is this a great country or what?

 

[Ringo84]

If you are asking your employer for a "living wage" you are asking for a job to support your chosen lifestyle.

Nope.

Because if you lack the skills to sell your labor at a price you find necessary, a second job might be necessary. What's wrong with working 2 jobs?

Nothing's "wrong" with it, but it shouldn't be necessary to survive. Maybe someone has the skills and simply can't find a job in their chosen field?

It must be so nice to be dismissive of minimum wage workers' plight because you climbed up the ladder and decided to bring it up with you so that others couldn't follow.
Ringo