Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield
First, I want to say that I find your posts on this topic to be very thoughtful and done in good faith. I especially appreciate that you argue the facts and do not resort to some of the tactics used by other posters in this thread. Thank you for your contribution.
That said, I take issue with some of the assumptions you make (which I have highlighted above)! and believe that I have presented links to research that presents a different view. In the end, our disagreement is over the elasticity of the demand for unskilled labor.
|
Thanks, Glenfield--right back at you. You and I have interacted a couple of times in the past, and I always appreciate your respectful focus on the issue—even if we disagree.
I think one of the more interesting angles to this discussion is the definition of “skilled” (or “unskilled”) labor. George Carlin had a routine in which he asked “which came first, skilled labor or unskilled labor?” He wasn't trying to be political with his question, he was just asking about the definition of the terms, and who was doing the defining.
Before I retired, I was a manger in a unionized supermarket bakery. I was also a union steward for the entire store. In both of those capacities, I had a constant opportunity to work with people who many would classify as being “unskilled”. In fact, workers in just about the entire service industry are placed in that category. The question is: why?
Clearly; cashiers, clerks, restaurant servers, etc. play a vital role in the everyday lives of us all. Just consider the best experience you've ever had with a service worker, and compare it to the worst experience you've had with a “skilled” worker. It’s difficult to argue that the best experience didn't involve a skilled worker, whether the skill displayed was speed, efficiency, customer interaction, or product/service knowledge. On the other hand, is an atrociously bad doctor, attorney, or journalist really a skilled worker?
The relative value of workers is artificially defined. Corporations undervalue workers because they can, because our economic and social structures allow for it. Most people today would recognize mining as a skilled profession. Yet that wasn't always the case. In the late Nineteenth/early Twentieth Centuries, Coal mining was a very low paying job, with wages that were below those of even retail clerks. Then the miners organized themselves into unions and demanded that their labor be respected.
The push for a higher minimum wage involves that same principle. It is workers (mostly in the service industry) demanding that their employers, and our broader society, recognize the true skills involved in the jobs those workers do.
The arguments many are using to oppose increases in the minimum wage are the same arguments corporations have used in past decades to object to things like union organizing, overtime pay, OSHA regulations, and anti-discrimination laws. Essentially, the argument they push is that it places a burden on companies, which in turn will hurt the workers themselves.
Raising the minimum wage certainly has the potential for some negative impact on small businesses, and the city should be looking at ways to mitigate that impact; and having a conversation about tip credits in the restaurant industry is perfectly legitimate. Ideally, minimum wage increases would occur nationally or at the state level. However, the current political realities of The United States, and of many of the individual states, is such that it has been left to large cities to provide the impetus for propelling worker’s rights forward.
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.
