Should we ban jobs which don't earn a living wage?

[strawman]

I find their logic to be faulty. The main argument is that they can't support a family on their current wages; entry-level positions in the fast food world were never meant to support families. If that's a concern, find a better job.

So this brings up the question. If an employer has a job that needs to be done, but they can't afford to pay a lot, or the job simply wouldn't exist (ie, profit margin too low means you don't start the business), is it ok for them to advertise for, and find people willing to do the job for at or just above minimum wage?

In this case, fast food workers in NYC are suggesting that they should be paid more than $14,000 per year (which is half the federal poverty level of $28,000/yr) because they can't afford shelter, food, and other necessities of life, including health care, on minimum wage.

While we could also talk about how their hours are tiny, and to actually work 40 or more hours a week one must maintain at least two jobs, and often three, the issue for this thread is just whether McDonalds and others should be paying them a living wage, regardless of the product they're offering.

Keep in mind that this is unskilled labor. You are not required to know much more than how to follow instructions at such jobs, even reading is optional if you pay careful attention to your training.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I feel like, for all intents and purposes, this is the minimum wage debate. If we have a minimum wage, does that encourage employers to hire fewer people or give fewer hours to those they hire, resulting in unemployment or underemployment? If we don't have a minimum wage, does that mean people are unfairly treated by the 'market' wage if it isn't livable?

I will have to find it again but I read an interesting article that proposed eliminating the minimum wage in favour of a minimum income. I won't attempt to explain the difference here since I don't feel I remember it well enough to proffer a good explanation. Maybe once I find it and re-read it.

 

[PatrThom]

More than anything else, I think what it is an indicator that perhaps the industry in question has reached market oversaturation, and maybe that industry/sector might benefit from the metaphorical forest fire and subsequent die-back. Then again, I can also see the parallel between this and the never-ending quest by agribusiness to up yield-per-acre rather than just upping yield by planting more acres. A geographical region can only (naturally) support a certain density of anything. Any higher than the limit and it requires some sort of artificial supplement to prop it up.

--Patrick

 

[Zappit]

Minimum income is an interesting idea. Increases in minimum wage leads to employers playing games, slashing hours, and pitting employees against one another for those precious few hours that remain - all to squeeze out a bit more profit or to look good in front of the higher-ups.

In so many cases, unskilled laborers are treated like playthings, used up, and discarded easily. There is no dignity there, no sense of security, and no real protections under the law against such abuse, especially since many states make it easy to fire employees for any bullshit reason they can come up with.

Switching to minimum income would have major effects. Jobs lost. Inflation. The same things we see every time minimum wage goes up. But those workers would know a vindictive employer can't slash hours over petty shit, that they can afford to maintain basic living conditions, and perhaps not being forced to supplement their meager income with government assistance. Wouldn't it be nice to phase out a large chunk of that for, say, jobs programs that could put those workers cut back to work, and increase the taxpayer base in general? I understand that it's naive to believe it would happen like that, as people would figure out how to skirt such laws or game the system in new ways. But it would be nice to see the standard of living get better for a lot of people...

 

[PatrThom]

For that matter, it would be nice to see all households guaranteed a minimum amount of food, shelter, utilities, etc. based on their size/environment, and then the job just becomes how you earn the discretionary portion of your income. But of course that sounds like capitalistic socialism, and everyone will have some reason to make sure it does not interfere with their business model or whatever hate it.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

All I know is that if McDonald's has to choose between paying $75/hr to keep a restaurant open using 5 high paid unskilled workers, or $30/hour for two high paid skilled operators and $150,000 one time payment plus $50,000/yr maintenance for more automation, they're going to choose the second in high volume 24/7 markets.

 

[Bowielee]

Even unskilled labor should make enough to feed and clothe you. Otherwise it essentially becomes slave labor.

Note that I said you, not an entire family.

 

[strawman]

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

 

[Krisken]

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

Yeah, not like hey should save for college, car insurance, ell, a car...

 

[Bowielee]

I don't agree about the slavelabor bit, though. Students, for instance, are one group of people where a lot of them want extra cash, have extra time, and don't want a job that requires significant training and a career. Many of them don't need a living wage since they are being supported through other means.

Youth in high school don't need a living wage.

That's what part time employees are for. I've supported myself on a job at Hardees because it was the only job available. You are worked like a dog and paid the least amount of money they can legally pay you. It is absolutely horrid.

 

[strawman]

Are you saying he needs $15/hr in order to save for that car or college? And that McDonald's should be forced to provide that pay scale for unskilled labor?

This doesn't make sense to me. People are honestly trying to disconnect the expertise level and amount of work from the reward? Socialism for the poorest, capitalism for the richest?

 

[Bowielee]

Are you saying he needs $15/hr in order to save for that car or college? And that McDonald's should be forced to provide that pay scale for unskilled labor?

This doesn't make sense to me. People are honestly trying to disconnect the expertise level and amount of work from the reward? Socialism for the poorest, capitalism for the richest?

So, get rid of the minimum wage and have someone work their fingers to the bone for 3 dollars an hour? Nope, that doesn't sound fucked up, like at all.

I love how conservatives like to make it sound like asking to make a wage that pays your rent and puts food in your mouth is tantamount to asking for caviar and sports cars.

 

[strawman]

I'm sorry, where did I say, "hey! Lets get rid of the minimum wage! Woo!"

If you're tired of discussing this rationally, maybe take a break.

I'm talking about whether we should _eliminate_ the gap between minimum wage and poverty level, not narrow it, or widen it as you amusingly suggest.

Right now we have a minimum wage which defines the lowest pay an unskilled worker can be paid. It's not a living wage, but apparently people expect it to be.

Is their expectation reasonable? Should we either pay someone a living wage or not pay them at all?

Or is there a good reason to allow unskilled jobs to be paid at less than a minimum wage? Are there workers that don't need a living wage and would like to work a job which doesn't require training?

Does the gap serve a purpose, or is it merely indentured servitude as some appear to suggest?

 

[Bowielee]

Yes, my response was extreme, it was in response to your snarky ass socialism comment.

Yes, minimum wage should be a living wage. That's the entire point of having a minimum wage. Minimum wage laws went into effect at the same time as child labor laws for the same reason. Workers were being exploited, overworked, and not even making enough money to live on.

The main issue that you're addressing is the fact that a living wage in a small town is WAY below the poverty line, whereas in a large city, where rent is over 1k per month, then there becomes a huge disparity. This is an urban issue. It may be that rather than having the same minimum wage, it should go by the living wage by area. But then that would also open a whole other can of worms in regards to people getting different levels of pay for the same type of work.

Is there an easy solution? No, but suggesting that people should just take what scraps they can get is societal ignorance of Marie Antoinette proportions.

Not everyone has the opportunity NOT to be unskilled labor, even if they're capable of being skilled labor.

 

[strawman]

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

 

[Bubble181]

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

While I fall more on the socialist side of this argument (oh, big surprise there), you're misrepresenting Bowielee's argument.
He's saying that someones flipping burgers full time (important bit, there) should make enough money to have food and shelter. You're representing his POV as being that they should earn "the same" as a collega graduate. That's not the same, unless you think even college educated jobs should only pay minimum wage.
I don't mind the guy stocking shelves at CostCo having to go without an iPhone and a yearly vacation to the Bahamas. I do mind him keeling over dead because, despite his job, he had to sleep in the gutter and eat out of the garbage can.

Abolishing minimum wage or making it so low as to be impossible to live on is nuts. Increasing it to where it's not beneficial to do anything higher is nuts as well.
See also: unemployment trap, where unemployment benefits are higher than low-paying job income, thus demotivating people to eevr get a job - as is the case in Belgium in some circumstances now.

 

[jwhouk]

"Indentured Servitude".

Didn't we have this argument 150 years ago?

 

[Bowielee]

Lets back up a little. What part of this isn't socialist in nature? You are suggesting they receive the wage they require, regardless of the work they do.

You are suggesting that a high school dropout, whether by choice or circumstance, should earn as much flipping burgers, stocking shelves, and bagging groceries as teachers, nurses, and others who went to school for another 4-6 years beyond high school.

Even if we assume that the stores and restaurants somehow magically don't have to raise their prices, and they employ the same number of people for the same hours, what is going to encourage people to stay in school and become skilled when they know they can bag groceries for the rest of their life and raise a family on that salary?

Where in the hell are you getting that I'm saying that unskilled labor should make the same as skilled labor?

If you're having trouble with the term living wage, how about we change it to surviving wage. Either way, paying someone working full time less money than it takes to live on is equivalent to slavery. If working doesn't fulfill your basic needs, you're essentially working for nothing.

Your stance is essentially "let them eat cake".

I'd be curious to know if you've ever met anyone making 14k a year. Hint, not all people are working unskilled labor out of laziness, despite what Glen Beck tells you.

 

[DarkAudit]

Does this forum count as "met"?

 

[Bubble181]

"Indentured Servitude".

Didn't we have this argument 150 years ago?

One can easily argue that people are already becoming indentured worker again, though this time in the hands of credit companies. Having loans/credit equalling or surpassing your likely lifetime earnings is not a rare thing these days, especially in credit happy countries such as the USA. This amounts to not owning anything and spending the rest of your life paying off debt - very much like people who become indentured servants in exchange for passage to the New World and such.

On one hand, people should lower expectations. I honestly believe we, the West, will have to become poorer as the rest of the world becomes richer. It's not a zero-sum game, but there are limits. It's unreasonable to expect a no-education, no-training job to pay enough to live comfortably and with luxuries. I also think it's acceptable for a job to not pay enough to live off of, if it isn't anywhere near full time employment.
On the other hand, someone working full time should earn enough to have the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, education, basic healthcare) and, if we want capitalism to stick around, a small amount of spending money.

The odd thing is, on a forum such as this one, with mostly Americans, I tend to come off as a left-wing semi-socialist filthy commie. On Belgian political fora or in the comments sections of Belgian newspapers, I come off as a neo-liberal right-wing let-them-starve capitalist. Not because my position changes all that much, but because the points of view are so far apart.

 

[phil]

I think the underlying problem is that the cost of living is too damn high. I don't have many options for finding a place to live on what I make now, unless I either want to live in an apartment complex where my car is likely to be stolen, or live in a nicer area but on a razor thin budget. If said car then needs a new tire or something, I'd be SOL.

 

[Necronic]

Even unskilled labor should make enough to feed and clothe you. Otherwise it essentially becomes slave labor.

Note that I said you, not an entire family.

That's the entire argument right there. Here's a fun fact. You can live on minimum wage. YOU can. You can't raise kids. You will be poor as hell. You will need to cook every meal, and cook cheap food. You will probably need to take the bus everywhere. But you can do it. As soon as you have kids though, that's another matter.

People need to stop having kids they can't afford.

 

[Bowielee]

That's the entire argument right there. Here's a fun fact. You can live on minimum wage. YOU can. You can't raise kids. You will be poor as hell. You will need to cook every meal, and cook cheap food. You will probably need to take the bus everywhere. But you can do it. As soon as you have kids though, that's another matter.

People need to stop having kids they can't afford.

No, you're misconstruing my point. Not even a single person in an urban environment can pay their rent or feed themselves on minimum wage without being essentially homeless.

 

[Krisken]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/paying-rent-on-minimum-wage/

Adjust for single bedroom, 60% of wage going to rent, and you're still looking at roughly 45 hours a week.

 

[Necronic]

No, you're misconstruing my point. Not even a single person in an urban environment can pay their rent or feed themselves on minimum wage without being essentially homeless.

Can you do it in manhattan? No. Can you do it in a reasonably priced area, like, say, all of the state of Texas? Yes. With a roommate in a 2 bedroom your rent and bills can easily be below 300$ a month.

And fwiw Krisken's link is talking about affording a 2 bedroom apartment. Defeats the entire purpose of the exercise.

 

[Bowielee]

Did you even read the rest of his post? Apparently not.

 

[Necronic]

What part did I miss? Please feel free to be active aggressive in your arguments.

 

[phil]

I'm not sure if you two are even in disagreement with one another, other than maybe if this is how things should be or not.

 

[Krisken]

Ok, lets do this since reading and critical thinking is hard I guess-
Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, pay is $15,080

Rent, $600 a month (yes, a one bedroom here is that much) $7,200
Utilities (gas, electric, phone, NO INTERNET) $140 a month, $1680
Food and home supplies- $80 a week, a year, $4160

Total in most optimistic environment- $13040. Hope you don't get sick. Or need gasoline. Or have car repairs.

 

[Necronic]

Roomate in a 2 bedroom. Saves you 3600$ a year, not counting bills.

 

[drawn_inward]

I have been working since I was 14. Part-time during H.S. and full-time in the summer. I've worked at McDonald's, Psych Ward, and DirectTV call center (and a cabinet shop during a college interlude). I barely made enough to cover expenses and go to college. BUT, I was able to go to college AND get a PhD. I did get some grants and a couple smallish loans. I also never went anywhere for spring break. I never had a cool car. I rarely ate out or went to concerts (DMB ). I sacrificed for the long run and did it. Those shitty jobs (not the cabinet shop) fueled me to not give up and quit. I hated that DirectTV job with every ounce of my being. It was the worst soul-sucking job that I ever had, but I never missed a day.

These jobs are not meant for careers. Go get a job as a brick layer, sheet-rock hanger, trim carpenter. Have a hospital pay your way through nursing school. Take out a loan and get a worth-while degree (i.e. not a fine-arts). Go to truck driving school (my brother did this and gets paid >40k).

So, no. They should not be paid a living wage at McDonald's. And, no. It's not just me that worked my way up. My dad did it (fire chef w/ no degree), my brother-in-law, brother, Aunt, etc. Sacrifice and hard work.

 

[Krisken]

That wasn't what was being argued. It was "can you live on your own on a minimum wage". Yeah, it's cheaper with a room mate. Most of the time. Finding a good room mate is not easy, though. Take my word on it, I've been through quite a few.

 

[drawn_inward]

That wasn't what was being argued. It was "can you live on your own on a minimum wage". Yeah, it's cheaper with a room mate. Most of the time. Finding a good room mate is not easy, though. Take my word on it, I've been through quite a few.

Agreed. Roommates suck. I have certainly had my fair share.

I didn't realize that was what the argument was. I would agree that it is nearly impossible to live on your own, but again it's part of the sacrifice.

 

[Krisken]

I have been working since I was 14. Part-time during H.S. and full-time in the summer. I've worked at McDonald's, Psych Ward, and DirectTV call center (and a cabinet shop during a college interlude). I barely made enough to cover expenses and go to college. BUT, I was able to go to college AND get a PhD. I did get some grants and a couple smallish loans. I also never went anywhere for spring break. I never had a cool car. I rarely ate out or went to concerts (DMB ). I sacrificed for the long run and did it. Those shitty jobs (not the cabinet shop) fueled me to not give up and quit. I hated that DirectTV job with every ounce of my being. It was the worst soul-sucking job that I ever had, but I never missed a day.

These jobs are not meant for careers. Go get a job as a brick layer, sheet-rock hanger, trim carpenter. Have a hospital pay your way through nursing school. Take out a loan and get a worth-while degree (i.e. not a fine-arts). Go to truck driving school (my brother did this and gets paid >40k).

So, no. They should not be paid a living wage at McDonald's. And, no. It's not just me that worked my way up. My dad did it (fire chef w/ no degree), my brother-in-law, brother, Aunt, etc. Sacrifice and hard work.

Skilled jobs are not that numerous. I respect how hard you worked and what you sacrificed, and it's great you were able to find a job to go along with it. Sadly, that isn't possible or feasible for everyone, not to mention so many people who did graduate are having trouble finding jobs.

 

[Necronic]

One of the hardest problems isn't really how much they make, but what kind of jobs exist. Most of us are lucky enough to have desk jobs. There are a lot of communities where every job is physical labor. I don't care if you're making 5$/hr or 12$/hr. many people simply can't do that work past a young age.

When you're young and strong finding decent work is easy enough. If you have 2 legs, 2 arms, some modicum of personal hygiene, and a handful of brain cells you can wait tables which can earn between 20-40k/yr pretty easily. It also allows for a flexible enough schedule to allow school or other training.

But when you're older the problem is a lot harder. That's a very hard problem.