Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We rarely do fast food, but last night I just didn't feel like cooking and it was pouring rain, so we did Doordash from Habit Burger Grill. It was 2 cheeseburgers, one chicken nuggets, 2 fries, 1 onion rings, no drinks, and with tip total was $54.45. Granted, they are a more upscale fast food place, and we can afford it, but that's getting really close to the price of a meal at a decent sit-down brew-pub. I checked their job listings and for front counter they are paying $22.39/hour.
What would the meal have cost if you had gone to the restaurant rather than using DoorDash?
I have a college degree, my sister is a high school dropout. How is it taxpayers fault 2 people from the exact same family, schools, genes, and uprising had different outcomes?
You cannot legislate outcome, not even siblings from the same household will have the same outcome.
Not only do people from the same family NOT have the "exact same" genes (excluding identical twins/triplets) they are rarely raised in the same manner. Siblings frequently differ greatly in intellectual ability, mechanical skills, visual/spatial perception, social skills, etc.
It's a rare parent who treats their son in the same manner they treat their daughter. So, no. You and your sister were not raised the same.
Doesn't help inflation but lowers income inequality. SO now the question is whether each state should set its own minimum or should the national government?
I personally support a significant rise in the Federal minimum wage.
So just to be clear - income inequality is not really an issue - the system is much more efficient with income inequality driving people to work harder and do better. But also minimum wages do not help income inequality, they hurt it. Minimum wages cause some to make slightly more but all wages above it increase also and the marginal workers lose their jobs in the process. So hurts those that are at the bottom the most. The efficient way to set wages is by the market, not by legislation.
Minimum wage laws do nothing unless set above the "fair" or market rate levels, that is not possible to impact federally because local wage markets differ so greatly - $10 might be too much in one where as $15 is too low in another to actually have an impact.
So how is giving most money to a small amount of people who more than likely put it into a bank account better than giving it to more people who are more likely to spend it? Innovations are only helpful if people can actually afford to buy them because without that you have a bunch of products sitting collecting dust. Please tell me how a majority of wealth is better for the economy though.
Those at the top are more likely to invest their money - growing the economy and creating more jobs - that is much better for the economy than just spending it.
The point (yet again) is that anyone spending 40 hours doing ANYTHING should earn enough in RT income
from that ~50hr* a week commitment to be there and productive enough to not be replaced ...
that any additional hours at OT rates can be used for additional life purposes.
*(40hr net + meals, breaks and commute time)
You are missing the point, minimum wage is NOT about a living wage - it is about setting a bottom for those just starting out. The idea is to EARN the wages by adding enough benefit to the business - no one OWES you a wage no matter how long you work. Work harder to EARN the wage and get off the bottom tier - if a worker is not worth the wage given, they will be out of a job.
Also most that earn a good living work more than 35-40 hours. Also adding in the extra 10 is just nonsense - they are not productive and are the employees choice how to use and where to live.
BTW - the data is that less than 0.2% work for minimum wage - mostly those just entering the work force.
So just to be clear - income inequality is not really an issue - the system is much more efficient with income inequality driving people to work harder and do better. But also minimum wages do not help income inequality, they hurt it. Minimum wages cause some to make slightly more but all wages above it increase also and the marginal workers lose their jobs in the process. So hurts those that are at the bottom the most. The efficient way to set wages is by the market, not by legislation.
Minimum wage laws do nothing unless set above the "fair" or market rate levels, that is not possible to impact federally because local wage markets differ so greatly - $10 might be too much in one where as $15 is too low in another to actually have an impact.
Honestly, if someone has skills that are so poor they are worth less than the minimum wage I don't think the solution is to allow them to be employed for less than that. I think it would make more sense to provide them with more education and job training as a sort of welfare benefit. No one around where I live is working for under $15 an hour including kids just out of high school.
The real function a minimum wage serves is not altering the market. That's impossible. What it is really part of is defining what a "job" is in the modern economy. A "job" pays a certain wage. It has certain benefits attached to it such as the payment of the employer's contribution to a worker's social security. Hours are limited to a certain maximum. Time and a half is required for over time work. Minimum wage laws when taken with other laws simply define the contours of what is permissible employment. I think the public and its elected government has every right to say that work which does fall within these boundaries is not legally recognized employment.
Honestly, if someone has skills that are so poor they are worth less than the minimum wage I don't think the solution is to allow them to be employed for less than that. I think it would make more sense to provide them with more education and job training as a sort of welfare benefit. No one around where I live is working for under $15 an hour including kids just out of high school.
Are these opportunities not already widely available?
Quote:
The real function a minimum wage serves is not altering the market. That's impossible.
I’m not sure about the impossible comment. Are you saying that the preceding sentence is in fact impossible? Because a minimum wage absolutely serves to alter the market.
Quote:
What it is really part of is defining what a "job" is in the modern economy. A "job" pays a certain wage. It has certain benefits attached to it such as the payment of the employer's contribution to a worker's social security. Hours are limited to a certain maximum. Time and a half is required for over time work. Minimum wage laws when taken with other laws simply define the contours of what is permissible employment. I think the public and its elected government has every right to say that work which does fall within these boundaries is not legally recognized employment.
And the end result of this is pricing marginal employees out of the market. There are those that due to whatever combination of circumstances they face, are not able to command more than minimum wage in the market. But they would absolutely be willing to work for less. Willing to actually make a contribution, and, at least partially, make their way in the world. However, these people are relegated to being unemployable, due to a minimum wage law.
Are these opportunities not already widely available?
I’m not sure about the impossible comment. Are you saying that the preceding sentence is in fact impossible? Because a minimum wage absolutely serves to alter the market.
And the end result of this is pricing marginal employees out of the market. There are those that due to whatever combination of circumstances they face, are not able to command more than minimum wage in the market. But they would absolutely be willing to work for less. Willing to actually make a contribution, and, at least partially, make their way in the world. However, these people are relegated to being unemployable, due to a minimum wage law.
I would like to meet these people. I would also wonder why they couldn't be given job skills through training that would allow them to earn at least the minimum wage.
I would like to meet these people. I would also wonder why they couldn't be given job skills through training that would allow them to earn at least the minimum wage.
Back in the 80’s and 90’s, knew several businesses that employed individuals that were developmentally disabled, but could still function at a reasonable level. They did simple tasks like emptying office waste baskets, delivering office mail, stocking supply shelves, etc. They were frequently paid less than minimum wage (yes, illegal, but that was a different time). I knew several of these individuals, and they were all very proud of the fact that they had a job, were making a (sort of) living, and in some cases, working at a prestigious employer (if you remember the TV series “LA Law,” think the character “Benny”).
I can’t imagine telling these people that they can no longer work, that they must in fact accept that they will be unemployed, because society doesn’t think they’re making enough money. With all the challenges they already face, how can one justify taking away something that is so meaningful in their life?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
