I think that the minimum wage is fine as is. it wasn't ever intended on being a wage that could support cost of living. it was intended to give high school students something to do in the summer to earn a little cash, and gain some experience in a real work environment.
but when people outside of high school, who have bills and sometimes have families cannot get a BETTER, higher paying job for whatever reason... they are forced into a minimum wage job. ( which causes other problems outside of their own. more on the scale of national economy status ones.) The US is the most over-qualified work force in the world. so many people go to school for years to get a good education, but cannot seem to get a good job despite being able to do the job well. hence they are forced into flipping burgers or something similar.
I think that if we really want to help people have a better standard of living, the key is not to raise the minimum wage, but rather help people get the better job. when you give companies reasons create jobs within a field, people flock to the opportunities. increased innovation and industry are what keeps an economy healthy and happy. while just throwing money at a problem like this tends to only make things worse.
if we can get the over-qualified people out of minimum wage jobs and into those ones... then things balance out because people who have to pay bills will make enough to do so, while those high school students who do not have that need, are not making as much, but still have plenty for their wants.
if we simply raise the minimum wage, then companies who pay minimum wage to their employees will generally do one of two things:
a) cut jobs to keep earnings rates the same, or b) raise the prices of their products/services to cover the new amount that they are having to pay. (some companies may do both.)
now not all companies will act the same, so the end result will be a combination of the two, leaving less people with jobs and a higher overall cost of living. which is the exact opposite of what we want. also, many small businesses may simply not be able to afford to pay employees at the higher rate and could go out of business altogether, thus the job market shrinks even further.
so to me the best course of action is to help people who need to pay bills and support families out of minimum wage (or under the cost of living) jobs, and into a better paying job.
English
-
The "not intended to live off of" line doesn't make any sense. The idea that the minimum wage should allow someone to live slightly above the poverty level was the original idea. A wage is how a person survives in our society, it's what they live on. Thus, to have the minimum wage is to have the minimum amount required to live on. Besides the original point, can't we think for ourselves on what we think the minimum wage should mean? I think it should be enough to live off of if you work full time. I think if you work 35-40+ hours per week you should bring in a minimum of $24,000 a year in my State. That's not a ton of money, seriously, most jobs require nearly 2000 hours of work per year, which comes out to $12/hour.
-
Edited by Kazzong: 7/17/2015 8:27:14 AMok. I am not going to argue with you on this. but the point is that the minimum or low wage jobs were intended for people who don't have any monetary obligations. always have been. flipping burgers isn't a career that people have for 40 years. it is a job that you MAYBE have for 1-4 years, to pay for school. it is a stepping stone to help you on your way to better things before you really need money. but in today's world people have forgotten that concept because it is harder to find those better jobs. this is because A) more people looking for a job than jobs available, and B) it is cheaper to hire someone outside the US to do the same job. I am all for paying people the amount that they deserve based on the value of the service they provide. but you do that by letting companies decide that it won't hurt their bottom line to do so, not force them into it, thus making them take measures to keep profit margins the same. also, the concept you are thinking of is called Basic Income. it covers just enough for cost of living, but that brings a whole different set of issues by itself.
-
Those jobs aren't coming back. Call it whatever, the choice we face is whether or not the jobs we have should pay a wage you can live on. It doesn't matter what's intended or what type of job or how easy or hard, to me, what matters more is if it's sustainable aka does it distribute wealth and boost our economy. The companies will always choose corporate greed over raising pay, the evidence is overwhelming.
-
huh??? what jobs are not coming back? that statement doesn't make any sense. and I explained what companies will do already. and as for sustainable economy... how else do you determine that a job is sustainable other than if a company is making more money than it is putting out, ergo paying for supplies and employees. if you can't pay an employee then you can't pay an employee and they lose their job. that is as simple as it gets. if you decide to keep prices the same, and not cut employees, you can only pay more money than you take in for so long before you go bankrupt. it isn't about corporate greed, it is very much about having a sustainable business. when you are paying out more than you take in you either cut your workforce, raise prices... or go out of business because you can't sustain the load. when companies go out of business because they had to raise prices to pay a higher wage... that means a lot of people then lose their jobs, and have even less money than they did before. how does that help anybody? also... are you at all familiar with Basic Income? it is like a welfare check from the government, you don't have to work, it just comes every month and it only covers the bare minimum for cost of living. it comes regardless of job, marital status, housing status, etc... anything like that. they get just enough to live on. and any job they have suddenly becomes extra money. Sounds great, right? everyone will always have enough to pay bills and buy food. only problem is that the money has to come from somewhere, which ends up being tax dollars. the people who would get the Basic Income check really don't have to work, and I don't think that is a good thing. it doesn't encourage them to better themselves as they have all financial needs covered without them doing anything. they might as well be living for free. People who DO work for what they have see this as an imbalance. why should they have to work? why should these people get to live for free and get paid to do nothing? it makes people mad to know that they are working and paying taxes to support people who are not working or paying taxes. I think that for all the talk of helping the minimum wage worker out there... people seem to forget that there really are lots of jobs that actually pay far more that any given person could do, but those people either can't get the better job because of lack of education or lack of motivation. some people are just too lazy to go out and get a different job, or are not willing to make sacrifices for it. fixing that would be a better solution. I am for helping those people better themselves. not just giving them more money, because simply throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. it is like teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. it takes time and effort, but it is far more satisfying, and far more valuable in the long run. now I am not an employer. nor do I make minimum wage. however, I also don't make much more, and it still isn't enough to live on my own. but I firmly believe that if the minimum wage goes up that the economy will get worse because of higher market prices. no matter how good an ideal is, no matter how good it makes us feel to simply "make things easier" by artificially raising minimum wage, it will have an overall negative effect because cost of living will go up with it. the better way to do things is give people a better education which leads to higher paying jobs without raising the cost of living.
-
Edited by Bloom Unknown : 7/18/2015 4:55:19 AMWow long post, let me try to break it down: 1) The jobs that aren't returning are the ones enjoyed by the generations prior to outsourcing and technology becoming the standard for companies. The reality is that the good paying jobs you are referring to are scarce. You are correct that we need an education system that gets as many people as possible into these jobs, and we need to maintain a free market to put all of this education to good use (this is what truly creates jobs in our economy - nearly 2/3 Americans are employed by small businesses), but the fact is that not even a majority of workers are in these jobs, and many of the remaining jobs aren't keeping up with inflation. This is where minimum wage has a purpose, to afford [u]full-time workers[/u] a wage that is livable in their region. 2) re: Basic Income, see above. I'm strictly talking about workers. It's interesting that now 2 people on this forum have brought up Basic Income implying that is what I'm advocating for. Well, according to your definition, I'm not. If that is the true definition then I find it odd to be brought up when talking about full-time workers. I find it even more odd that people don't value the jobs that they are obviously being serviced by. Incredible. 3) My last point is in response to your rationalization of suppressed wages and labor exploitation. The economics of the situation are complex, but nearly all economists right now are calling for the end of stagnant wages. The statistics are clear when it comes to productivity vs wage growth, wage growth on the bottom vs the top, and income inequality and wealth inequality. The fear of raising wages to match inflation are unfounded. There is a quote from FDR that I will paraphrase: don't let the people making $2500+ /week tell you that if you made $600/week the economy would tank. Here is a direct quote from FDR that I really think deserves thought: "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country" Many of these companies are making tons of profit by exploiting the saturated labor market. It's not fair and thus not free and not supportive of the free market (competition). What I think raising the minimum wage to $12 in my state would do is allow for less workers to be on government assistance, and they could better afford the prices that have skyrocketed while they made the same or in many cases less since the recession. That means more tax revenue and less government spending. Most importantly it gives workers a sense of fairness and instill a trust in the market, and it allows people the extra money to invest in themselves. You can probably tell I think it would be good overall, but my main logic is that most jobs aren't minimum wage and prices reflect this. When the minimum wage is so low compared to demand from the people making much more money, the poor can no longer afford the goods. That's why the floor has to keep up with the ceiling so to speak. And the evidence is there. Worker productivity has gone up 300% in the past 20 years, but the worker hasn't been paid any more. More money in the system means each dollar is worth less. The worker is thus making less money over time.
-
getting late. will reply to this tomorrow. looks well thought out though.