Thoughts on $15 hour minimum wage in US?

[tango]

I am sure that $15/hour as the minimum wage is based on a whole lot more than a mere arbitrary whim. IN Australia minimum wages are set by a tribunal which hears the case for various levels of increase and decides on the evidence presented by the interested parties. It is a public hearing and the evidence is open to public scrutiny. My guess is that the USA states make their decisions in a similar way.

sent from my keyboard using my fingers and thumbs.

The trouble with making such decisions at a high level is the question of what the minimum wage is intended to achieve. If it's about ensuring a standard of living then the minimum wage in New York City would have to be much higher than the minimum wage somewhere like Elmira NY. And as soon as you start defining conditions it distorts the market horribly near the boundaries.

Even if it is about ensuring a standard of living, how do you propose to introduce a huge increase in minimum wages without triggering a huge round of inflation?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The trouble with making such decisions at a high level is the question of what the minimum wage is intended to achieve. If it's about ensuring a standard of living then the minimum wage in New York City would have to be much higher than the minimum wage somewhere like Elmira NY. And as soon as you start defining conditions it distorts the market horribly near the boundaries.

Even if it is about ensuring a standard of living, how do you propose to introduce a huge increase in minimum wages without triggering a huge round of inflation?

Goods in NY City probably cost the same or slightly less than the same goods in a small town in NY state. Your premise appears to be incorrect.

 

[tango]

Goods in NY City probably cost the same or slightly less than the same goods in a small town in NY state. Your premise appears to be incorrect.

Is that why it costs $80 for four people to have wings in Brooklyn but more like $50 for much the same meal in rural PA?

Have you ever been shopping in Manhatten?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is that why it costs $80 for four people to have wings in Brooklyn but more like $50 for much the same meal in rural PA?

Have you ever been shopping in Manhatten?

Now you're talking about services rather than goods. The two are quite different. Besides, the service in a NY City restaurant is very likely different in quality from the service in a country town. I imagine the quality of the food differs significantly too and the cost of high quality meat, fish, and poultry is significantly higher than ordinary meat, fish, and poultry. Thus your line of argument is still in error.

 

[tango]

Now you're talking about services rather than goods.

Waiting staff in US diners aren't paid very well. Even the current minimum wage doesn't apply to them because it's assumed that customers will make up the difference with tips.

The two are quite different.

In some ways, but services have to be provided by someone, and goods have to be transported by someone, put on the shelf by someone, checked out by someone, while someone else stands guard to make sure nobody bypasses the process and takes the goods without paying. Lots of wages to pay there, no?

Besides, the service in a NY City restaurant is very likely different in quality from the service in a country town. I imagine the quality of the food differs significantly too and the cost of high quality meat, fish, and poultry is significantly higher than ordinary meat, fish, and poultry. Thus your line of argument is still in error.

I'm talking about wings in a diner here. If I was comparing wings in a rural PA diner with lobster and cristal on ice in Manhatten you'd have a point. Certainly the $15 wings in Brooklyn tasted much the same as the $8 wings in rural PA. The diner wasn't any nicer than the diner in PA either, it was what some would call a "greasy spoon caff".

 

[king of the unknown]

Waiting staff in US diners aren't paid very well. Even the current minimum wage doesn't apply to them because it's assumed that customers will make up the difference with tips.



In some ways, but services have to be provided by someone, and goods have to be transported by someone, put on the shelf by someone, checked out by someone, while someone else stands guard to make sure nobody bypasses the process and takes the goods without paying. Lots of wages to pay there, no?



I'm talking about wings in a diner here. If I was comparing wings in a rural PA diner with lobster and cristal on ice in Manhatten you'd have a point. Certainly the $15 wings in Brooklyn tasted much the same as the $8 wings in rural PA. The diner wasn't any nicer than the diner in PA either, it was what some would call a "greasy spoon caff".

This is probably off topic but you guy are getting really fierce. Are either of you guys taking it personal? You should take a break calm down. Then again if you guys are just having a fun debate keep going. Have fun but the moment you feel attacked your guys discussion becomes a fight. Remember this is a place to be able to talk about faith and stuff. Not a hostile environment.

 

[tango]

This is probably off topic but you guy are getting really fierce. Are either of you guys taking it personal? You should take a break calm down. Then again if you guys are just having a fun debate keep going. Have fun but the moment you feel attacked your guys discussion becomes a fight. Remember this is a place to be able to talk about faith and stuff. Not a hostile environment.

Fierce? It doesn't look fierce to me, or personal. We're talking about each others' points rather than making personal attacks. MoreCoffee thinks I am wrong, I think MoreCoffee is wrong. As long as we focus on the issues and not on bashing each other my view is that we're good.

That said, if MoreCoffee thinks it's getting fierce or personal we can always back off a bit and come back later.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is probably off topic but you guy are getting really fierce. Are either of you guys taking it personal? You should take a break calm down. Then again if you guys are just having a fun debate keep going. Have fun but the moment you feel attacked your guys discussion becomes a fight. Remember this is a place to be able to talk about faith and stuff. Not a hostile environment.

No, I rather like contango

I do not fear disagreement. And fierce disputing doesn't mean fierce dislike.

Besides, a $15/hour minimum wage for USA states isn't going to bust anybody's bank.

If a business can't pay $15/hour to the hired help then maybe they will have to do without hired help; I suspect that a business that can't make ends meet at $15/hour is sailing very close to the wind already and will probably go under because it is not profitable. But in some cases, like an old couple paying somebody to look after their garden, I suspect that is more a matter of agreed prices than minimum wages.

 

[king of the unknown]

Okay then have a nice discussion.

 

[tango]

No, I rather like contango

I'm glad you said that, after I posted my comment I got to thinking much the same thing.

I do not fear disagreement. And fierce disputing doesn't mean fierce dislike.

Woah! We're agreeing on something in this thread! Best back up and resume our battle

Besides, a $15/hour minimum wage for USA states isn't going to bust anybody's bank.

That is kind of the point of the discussion, so just stating the case under discussion as if it were a done deal isn't really on...

The counter point is that if wages jump from ~$7/hour to $15/hour the payroll costs double and that has knock-on effects. I suspect a lot of companies can't afford to double their payroll costs and survive. Some can, some can't, but to assume that all companies are alike isn't helpful. The huge companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon would probably find it easier in theory (willingness aside) to increase the wages to their staff. Small companies don't always work the same way, and when you're dealing with small companies where the owners go without a salary at all some months because they basically get what's left over you'd be looking at shutting down those companies overnight. Is it better for a worker to get $8/hour and keep their job, or be guaranteed a minimum of $15/hour in their job but lose their job along the way and get nothing?

If a business can't pay $15/hour to the hired help then maybe they will have to do without hired help; I suspect that a business that can't make ends meet at $15/hour is sailing very close to the wind already and will probably go under because it is not profitable. But in some cases, like an old couple paying somebody to look after their garden, I suspect that is more a matter of agreed prices than minimum wages.

If you're talking a huge multinational then I agree it's more likely that they could pay $15/hour even though doing that would massively distort the market. Small companies, startups, mom-and-pop companies, may genuinely not be able to pay $15/hour for hired help. If a small company is forced out of business because the law mandates that the payroll costs double that also has knock-on effects. If the owners took out loans to start the company and the company has to shut down pretty much overnight the owners (who are likely to be couples, rather than billionaires) potentially lose their homes. This is just another problem with centrally mandated wages - the huge corporations can just hire a few extra administrators to sort it all out while the really small companies get crushed by the increases and the increased cost of compliance. And if you introduce legislation that only relates to companies with more than a certain number of employees it distorts the market around the defining line - if companies with more than 50 full time staff have to pay twice the hourly rate what do you suppose will happen in a company with 51 full time members of staff that doesn't want to see their payroll costs double?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm glad you said that, after I posted my comment I got to thinking much the same thing.

Woah! We're agreeing on something in this thread! Best back up and resume our battle

That is kind of the point of the discussion, so just stating the case under discussion as if it were a done deal isn't really on...

The counter point is that if wages jump from ~$7/hour to $15/hour the payroll costs double and that has knock-on effects. I suspect a lot of companies can't afford to double their payroll costs and survive. Some can, some can't, but to assume that all companies are alike isn't helpful. The huge companies like Wal-Mart and Amazon would probably find it easier in theory (willingness aside) to increase the wages to their staff. Small companies don't always work the same way, and when you're dealing with small companies where the owners go without a salary at all some months because they basically get what's left over you'd be looking at shutting down those companies overnight. Is it better for a worker to get $8/hour and keep their job, or be guaranteed a minimum of $15/hour in their job but lose their job along the way and get nothing?

If you're talking a huge multinational then I agree it's more likely that they could pay $15/hour even though doing that would massively distort the market. Small companies, startups, mom-and-pop companies, may genuinely not be able to pay $15/hour for hired help. If a small company is forced out of business because the law mandates that the payroll costs double that also has knock-on effects. If the owners took out loans to start the company and the company has to shut down pretty much overnight the owners (who are likely to be couples, rather than billionaires) potentially lose their homes. This is just another problem with centrally mandated wages - the huge corporations can just hire a few extra administrators to sort it all out while the really small companies get crushed by the increases and the increased cost of compliance. And if you introduce legislation that only relates to companies with more than a certain number of employees it distorts the market around the defining line - if companies with more than 50 full time staff have to pay twice the hourly rate what do you suppose will happen in a company with 51 full time members of staff that doesn't want to see their payroll costs double?

If a mom & pop run a business so poorly that paying their employees $15/hour (that's $600/week approximately) and they were paying them only $7/hour ($280 per week) then their business is really really crappy and they are exploiting their employees, even if they are family members ...

If Mom & Pop are exploiting folk for business then let them go bankrupt, they would deserve it I say.

 

[tango]

If a mom & pop run a business so poorly that paying their employees $15/hour (that's $600/week approximately) and they were paying them only $7/hour ($280 per week) then their business is really really crappy and they are exploiting their employees, even if they are family members ...

If Mom & Pop are exploiting folk for business then let them go bankrupt, they would deserve it I say.

You're still coming at this from a one-size-fits-all perspective.

Why is someone with no particular skills, whose job could be done on day 1 by anyone selected at random from the phone book, suddenly worth $15/hour? It's not exploiting someone to pay what their skills are worth, and if the only reason someone commands $15/hour (or $20/hour, or $3/hour, or $1000/hour) is because the government has mandated that nobody can be paid less than that figure then they aren't actually worth that figure at all.

If the skills and abilities I bring to the table are enough that I can convince an employer that it's worth paying me $50/hour then that's my value. If I don't bring anything to the table that can't be replaced within a day then my value is limited, and it's not exploiting me to pay me a low wage. If anything it's exploiting small businesses to demand they pay over the odds for an employee that doesn't bring much to the table.

But for those who truly believe that it's a Good Thing to pay way over the odds to make a point, I've got a 13-year-old car that I'd be happy to let go of for $25,000. It's not worth that, but you wouldn't want to exploit me by paying me what it really was worth, right?

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're still coming at this from a one-size-fits-all perspective.

Why is someone with no particular skills, whose job could be done on day 1 by anyone selected at random from the phone book, suddenly worth $15/hour? It's not exploiting someone to pay what their skills are worth, and if the only reason someone commands $15/hour (or $20/hour, or $3/hour, or $1000/hour) is because the government has mandated that nobody can be paid less than that figure then they aren't actually worth that figure at all.

If the skills and abilities I bring to the table are enough that I can convince an employer that it's worth paying me $50/hour then that's my value. If I don't bring anything to the table that can't be replaced within a day then my value is limited, and it's not exploiting me to pay me a low wage. If anything it's exploiting small businesses to demand they pay over the odds for an employee that doesn't bring much to the table.

But for those who truly believe that it's a Good Thing to pay way over the odds to make a point, I've got a 13-year-old car that I'd be happy to let go of for $25,000. It's not worth that, but you wouldn't want to exploit me by paying me what it really was worth, right?

It's more like 50 sizes fit 50 and it is a minimum not an average, but for all that, even if it were just one minimum wage for the whole USA $15/hour is still quite low pay. Even in a country town with low rent and low costs for most things $600/week is a low wage in 2015.

By the way, is $15/hour proposed for the whole nation?

 

[Hammster]

Goods in NY City probably cost the same or slightly less than the same goods in a small town in NY state. Your premise appears to be incorrect.

Here's an example of where you miss the mark. Currently, gas prices in California are 3.66 a gallon. In Missouri, it's 2.54.

To put 15 gallons in your car in California, it's 55 dollars. In Missouri, it's forty. So just for gas, a person in LA has to work one more hour to pay for the same amount of gas. And that's just for gas. Other prices are significantly different as well.

If 15 was the minimum wage and someone in St. Louis made 30000 a year, to have the same level of living in Los Angeles would mean they'd have to make 43000 a year.

Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

That is true Hammster but if making under 15 an hour could they even afford a car or the insurance?

 

[Hammster]

That is true Hammster but if making under 15 an hour could they even afford a car or the insurance?

I own a 93 Accord. So, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

I own a 93 Accord. So, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

I own a 99 Buick and I only got thta because I got some money that heped me buy it. I believe in Gods provision so I am sure when the time comes I will get another car but on a VA pension it would be impossible.

 

[Hammster]

I own a 99 Buick and I only got thta because I got some money that heped me buy it. I believe in Gods provision so I am sure when the time comes I will get another car but on a VA pension it would be impossible.

Neat. And all of this has nothing to with the topic. Nobody is entitled to a car.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Josiah]

IF I had been satisfied with my min. wage job, I'd still be driving the 99 Camry my parents gave me... but I learned that while that job was a ministry and to be respected, I could and should do more - and so finished my undergrad degree and went on to get my doctorate and now make several times that income. I was able to buy a new Mazda Miata..... as well as a home, etc. And I still have a job that is a ministry and to be respected.

IMO, one of the important lessons one can learn in the typical min. wage job is GET OUT OF HERE ASAP..... One of the things that drives people to do all the Lord empowers in them is the greater salary. IMO, society is hurting people by holding them in jobs less than they can do. IMO, we should be empowering to do more, not enabling them to be less.



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

And for all those struggling, who may not have access or opportunity or even intelligence for college? In a country like this I think minimum wage should reflect a standard of living that is at least able to buy food, clothes and shelter. If you work that should be the least that you should expect.