America is rapidly falling behind its peers.
Its been well understood that taking care of your people is the key to prosperity, yet politically we seem to be more worried about ensuring the rich live their lives of leisure at the expense of our working class.
The bare minimum standard we should hold ourselves to is that a 40 hour work week should be able to put a roof over your head and food on your table.
The fact that the minimum wage is continuously supressed is absurd.
> The bare minimum standard we should hold ourselves to is that a 40 hour work week should be able to put a roof over your head and food on your table
Absolutely, but it seems to me that as long as companies have A) the option to not hire people and/or B) ways to side-step minimum wage with non-US labor, minimum wage won't achieve that goal for everyone. It will enable the goal for a few and the rest will have a 0 hour work week and a harder time getting any type of job.
But there's the other side of the question - why is a roof over your head and food on your table getting so expensive? That's what needs to be addressed. High rent/housing/food costs prevent cheap labor. There's no point in raising minimum wage to $20/hr if the price of food and rent keeps going up.
Inflation sucks but it is a basic reality. As a request to policy folks out there please consider advocating the minimum wage have some connection to local CPI. A demand for a $xx/hr minimum globally is going to be both too high and too low and irrelevant in a few years time either way. This should not be an issue that needs to be relitigated every 5-10 years just to get back to where we started. The minimum should be set to reflect a basic standard of living in a given locale and not an arbitrary number.
This is obviously good policy, but is effectively impossible because a large contingent of policymakers don't want there to be a minimum wage. In a past era they could trade votes for an $X/hr minimum in exchange for something they wanted, confident that any law they helped pass would be effectively obsolete in a few years anyway, while what they bargained for would live on. A proposal for a scaling minimum wage would never pass. This isn't just a dig at Republicans, by the way, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives among the Dems too.
It's also a good way to turn the 50 states into a collection of poor vs well-off locations, where being born into one means you are possibly trapped there due to having no money to leave. That plan invites the poorest states to simply fall apart - and like what's already happening: invites the richer states to pick up the burden of paying for states with bad (usually republican) economic policies.
To be fair, most cities are run by Dems. They do not do a good job, and that's only partially because they have to foot the bill of disastrously expensive suburbs.
The pace with which the cost of living is rising is staggering. Heck, I remember the fight for 15 (referring to the campaign to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/h) a decade ago, but I don't see how someone could live on that, $2600/mo pre-tax income, in most of the country these days either. That's like 60%+ of your gross income on rent for a typical 1br across large swaths of the country, no?
> I don't see how someone could live on that, $2600/mo pre-tax income, in most of the country these days either. That's like 60%+ of your gross income on rent for a typical 1br across large swaths of the country, no?
Probably really location dependent, like you said. I could definitely live on that where I live in rural Iowa; the mortgage for my 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house is less than $800 per month.
You're right, we were lucky and bought it toward the end of 2016 with a 3.3% interest rate, right before house values and interest rates started shooting up.
I'm not sure what it's worth today, but we bought it for 90k, so call it 150k? According to a mortgage calculator that I found online, my monthly payment would increase from the $800 I pay now (includes escrow and extra toward the principal) to about $1350 per month with escrow. Definitely a big jump, and I'm not so sure it's doable on that $15/hr minimum wage; it would require my wife to work as well if we want any disposable income after the mortgage, bills and groceries.
I just looked up a nearby property in the bay area listed for almost a million. Estimated payment $6000/month for a cozy 2 bedroom 1000 square foot fixer-upper. Also that area is a 1 hour + commute to where the actual offices are. This is where the tech people are living. Ultimately this is all cross talk. You living wherever you do cheaply does not help me. I think living here needing a living wage probably helps you.
Doesn't the Bay Area have its own unique real estate/housing problem? I don't think that's something a federal minimum wage can or should address. I'm not convinced that I should be able to make $30/hour at any job in Iowa because of real estate prices in California or New York – but I do think people in Iowa should be guaranteed enough to buy their own homes with 40 hours per week.
> This is where the tech people are living.
Just to note, I am a tech person living out here! I run my own software business, and used to work as a dev for local and remote companies before that.
Shameful, especially here in Wisconsin where the minimum wage is still set to $7.25/hour. And even more shameful the tactics used by gig-companies like Uber and DoorDash to depress their own liabilities, and worker wages, even further down.
"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
I'm ambivalent about a Federal minimum wage, it's probably mostly harmless, and maybe helps people at the margin. But. No minimum wage allows small businesses to hire the unhireable (eg. teenagers), which gives them a first step on the wage ladder.
I looked up Wisconsin wage stats in Gemini[1].
Wage Bracket (Hourly) Estimated Percentage of Jobs Wage Bracket (Annual)
Under $12.29 Approximately 13% Under $25,560
$12.29 to $15.27 Approximately 13% $25,560 to $31,771
$15.28 to $18.26 Approximately 16% $31,772 to $37,983
$18.26 to $21.25 Approximately 14% $37,984 to $44,195
$21.25 to $24.23 Approximately 11% $44,196 to $50,407
$24.23 to $27.22 Approximately 10% $50,408 to $56,619
$27.22 to $30.21 Approximately 8% $56,620 to $62,831
$30.21 to $33.19 Approximately 5% $62,832 to $69,044
$33.19 to $36.18 Approximately 5% $69,045 to $75,256
$36.18 to $39.17 Approximately 4% $75,257 to $81,468
$39.17 to $42.15 Approximately 4% $81,469 to $87,680
$42.15 to $45.14 Approximately 4% $87,681 to $93,893
$45.14 and over Data not specifically itemized in this format, but represents the remaining percentage of jobs $93,893 and over
Simple competition likely drives wages well above the State mandated minimum wage.
[1] "create a distribution table of the population to wages of workers in Wisconsin"
There’s still more to take for the Trump administration. All that free Medicaid, pesky union pay, silly child labor laws, social security etc. are all luxuries the American public doesn’t deserve.
If virtually no one earns $7.25/hr and employers wouldn't dream of offering it, then why not just raise the federal minimum to $12?
If it’s truly irrelevant, then it won’t affect anyone -workers won’t be hurt, and businesses won’t be forced to pay more than they already do. Seems like a win-win, right?
No, because if you pin the minimum wage to wages at full employment, there's no downward flexibility when a recession hits, and you end up with tons of deadweight loss in the labor market.
There's never political will to lower the wage even if economic conditions call for it. There's no benefit to raising the wage now, but there's inevitably a big cost in a few years.
> Nearly 8 in 10 workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2023 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving-related jobs. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received. (See table 4.)
There's a long tail but you can start with 80% of that 1% getting tips in food service.
They are waiters at non-fast-food restaurants and bars who make a nominal $2.50/hr and take most of their income in tips. I was very clear about this. I don't understand what's confusing.
> The estimates of workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage are based solely on the hourly wage that respondents report (which does not include overtime pay, tips, or commissions). It should be noted that some respondents might round their hourly earnings when answering survey questions. As a result, some workers might be reported as having hourly earnings above or below the federal minimum wage when, in fact, they earn the minimum wage.
> Some workers reported as earning at or below the prevailing federal minimum wage may not in fact be covered by federal or state minimum wage laws because of exclusions and exemptions in the statutes. Thus, the presence of workers with hourly earnings below the federal minimum wage does not necessarily indicate violations of the FLSA or state statutes in cases where such standards apply.
I don't think you can easily conclude that all those employees must be tipped.
Listen, everything is staring you in the face. You can live in whatever reality you want, but the market rate for labor is not $7.25 anywhere in the country. Nobody has any reason to tolerate federal minimum wage, and they don't.
You can try to find poke holes in reports to find caveats that oh maybe there are food service employees actually rounding down and making min wage, but it doesn't change the reality that there aren't.
You cannot in real life find a real person making $7.25 in a restaurant, because they aren't. Arguing about it on HN doesn't change that reality.
"US Department of Labor recovers $87K in back wages, damages from New Port Richey restaurant for 21 workers denied minimum wage, overtime"
"U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigators found the restaurant required employees to purchase a uniform shirt, which caused their average weekly wages to fall below the federal minimum wage"
That site lists more, and I'm sure they aren't the only organization which does these investigations.
> 0, Defendants violated the provisions of Sections 206 and 215(a)(2) by including kitchen staff employees in the tip pool when they are not customarily or regularly tipped employees, thereby invalidating the tip credit.
It was an invalid tip pool, because it included kitchen staff in the pool. So then the feds threw out the tip credit when calculating the effective minimum wage. In fact, there's no evidence at all that the employees actually took home less than $7.25. It's a technical violation, sure, but not evidence to your point at all.
This should have been obvious if you read your own link — do you honestly believe the waitstaff was working for $3/$4 an hour? Come on.
If they are working full time through the year, they likely aren't spending much time in school and whatever work they are doing should bring in enough money for them to not be homeless, starving, or unable to meet other basic needs like healthcare.
I'd further note that the government and it's taxpayers pay the toll regardless of whether or not we increase the minimum wage. We just end up paying the cost elsewhere in a way that's dollar for dollar a lot less efficient (policing, ER visits, homeless shelters, etc.)
Arguments aside, what do you feel would be an appropriate minimum wage for someone working a job in the US? What factors go into that number? In what situations does that number change?
By living with friends or family, state assistance, and/or charity.
How are you supposed to live on 0 wage? Inevitably for some people that's what a minimum wage means: There is some work with some wage less than a minimum for which this person in this place could work, and they can't because of the minimum. Among other considerations any minimum wage has to balance that harm vs the harm for people who would be paid fairly more with a higher minimum wage.
It's also just the case that an extremely small portion of the public makes minimum wage, and since they're exceptional each of their situations are exceptional in its own way.
What was the last job you had that calibrated your pay by asking if you were a dependent? Should someone make less if they are married? Should adult parents be paid less if they live with and are supported by a child? It is irrelevant.
Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should that job be required to pay above the market wage to make it also attractive to independent adults? Then what job will the highshoolers have? If I've got to pay a full adult wage anyways, I'm probably not going to employ a highschooler.
It creates a deadweight loss. In this example are kids that would benefit from working, at low wages, from both the experience and income and they're left out. There would be useful work done that probably just doesn't get done, creating harms in the form of missing products and services.
Now sure, non-existence of a minimum wage would create other harms and losses so there is a balancing act-- but in the special case of students being discussed here those other costs don't apply. (and that's also why in practice there are minimum wage exceptions like the 'youth minimum wage program').
This is a bit of a wild way to explain away "we're going to pay people under 18 less because we think we can justify it." Just raise the minimum wage and pay them the same. If they don't take the jobs, they don't. If the jobs go unfilled, raise the pay to a clearing price where they are. If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate.
How you see this issue is likely governed by where on the spectrum between "human" and "labor" you see a person, admittedly. In this context, we're going through contortions to argue to pay people less by age "because we can."
> If employers can't make the economics work, that's unfortunate.
Yes, minimum wages are unfortunate for those who don’t have sufficient skills to work at minimum wage. That’s why there are almost no more human order-takers at fast food restaurants. Kind of sucks for the kids — and poorer folks — who could have worked those jobs and used them as a springboard to something else.
There will always be some kind of work at this level. I did market research, which sucked, and fruit picking, which sucked, and warehouse order picking, which sucked, and bar work, which didn't suck too much, before getting into my career.
I think if we replaced all those jobs with robots, there would still be new, more interesting, work at this level that would emerge.
My favourite example of this is bank clerks. Every bank used to employ an army of clerks that did all the double-entry book-keeping by hand. Then we invented computers and that entire career vanished. All of the people who would have been bank clerks are now doing something else, almost certainly something else way more interesting than being a human spreadsheet. But at roughly the same pay level in roughly the same numbers as bank clerks used to be employed.
You are stating these things like they are natural or physical laws, when they are simply agreed upon politically and can change. Look no further than California raising the minimum wage to $20/hour for fast food workers, increasing costs roughly ~1.5%. So, let us not say that it can't be done, only that those with the power to change this are unwilling to (for obvious, economic advantageous and exploitation reasons).
I'm in California. Two of my favorite fast food restaurants have closed (or closed their locations here) others have radically reduced their workforce and replaced humans with machines.
You are not addressing my point. The cost to consumers does not consider the cost to potential employees who no longer have jobs. Note the very first comment (at this time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43806765): ‘The fast food chains seem to have a bifurcated response. Some, like McDonalds, seem to have cut crew, while retaining relatively low prices.’
And yes, it is a natural law that increasing the cost of something reduces its usage. That’s why we many governments tax alcohol and cigarettes. Raising the cost of labour means that less of it is bought.
Raising the cost of labour puts labourers out of work.
> There is always a great deal of political heat around minimum wage increases, largely driven by concerns about job losses. After a minimum wage increase, the story goes, many employers will not be able to afford to pay their workers the new higher minimum wage and will therefore shrink their payrolls. If these job losses are large enough, they could even swamp the higher wages and lead to lower overall wage income for the entire group of affected workers.
> Actual evidence shows that this narrative is largely wrong. A new review that I co-authored with Arindrajit Dube finds that most minimum wage studies find no job losses or only small disemployment effects. In other words, the vast majority of minimum wage research implies that minimum wage policies have unambiguously raised the total earnings of low-wage workers.
> This conclusion is strengthened by focusing on the studies that examine broad groups of low-wage workers or the overall workforce, not just narrow segments like teenagers. As the figure below shows, the median employment response is essentially zero among these more comprehensive studies, with 90% of these studies finding no or only small disemployment effects.
> 90% of these studies finding no or only small disemployment effects.
That’s what you’d expect though if the studied minimum wage increases were too small to meaningfully impact the labor market, which mostly seems to be the case from randomly spot checking a few of the underlying studies.
For example roughly 0.15% of the workforce currently makes $7.25 an hour. McDonald’s in low cost of living areas starts out closer to $15.
So if you raise the minimum wage to $8. You’ll see “small unemployment effects.”
If you raised it to $20, you’ll see much larger unemployment effects. But legislators know this is the case so they don’t tend to raise minimum wages by amounts that will cause large unemployment effects.
So of course most studies of real world minimum wage increases don’t show large unemployment effects.
Personally I think a negative income tax is a much more efficient and fair means of accomplishing the same goal.
Have you ever lived in poverty? Have you ever earned minimum wage (or below)? I have and I am extremely grateful for the oppturnities it brought me and the life I was eventually able to make out of it.
There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree!
Yes and yes. It is why I believe there is no room for negotiation and weaseling out of paying humans a wage required that enables them to live with dignity (as it relates to a minimum wage) [1].
Edit:
> There are myriad ways to dehumanize a person. One is saying they should be denied some opportunities they would freely choose to take out of a paternalistic desire to help them. It's a complicated subject, you don't need to justify your position by besmirching the empathy of those who have views you disagree with. Reasonable people can simply disagree!
I don't know what else to tell you my dude. McDonalds made $14B in profit last year. I can show you many examples where the economic resources surely exist based on the profits being made, in whatever industry or vertical you want to pick from, to pay people a living wage. I'm not saying no profits, I'm not cheering on communism. I'm simply arguing for the existing system to pay people enough to survive in comfort, regardless of age, with some combination of decreased profits and increased costs. If I can show you the economic value and wealth exists, and we still go through contortions to argue we cannot pay living wages to people (when the evidence is robust that we can), I can either come to the conclusion that someone has not built a robust mental model on all of the variables in play or they just don't think we should pay people enough to live. We're just arguing unnecessary economic system complexity (living wages for some, lower wages for teenagers even though a majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers [2]) to paper over exploitation for some combination of consumer excess and shareholder returns. No attempt at dehumanizing is being made.
As a worker being denied the ability to get work I wanted to accept at an agreed wage because someone far away who never met me and doesn't understand my life thought it was too low for my own good isn't particularly dignified.
That's why I'm arguing with your presentation even though I don't oppose having a minimum wage. It's not just a question of lacking empathy for someone or living with dignity, because in those terms a minimum wage can have the opposite effect.
And dismissing contrasting views as unemphatic or suggesting that no one can be poorly paid with dignity detracts from having a useful conversation... it also says little about what the minimum wage should be. Certainly $1m/yr is more dignified than less! :P
> Lets imagine that there is a job with parameters (including wages) where only high schoolers would take the job. Should that job be required to pay above the market wage to make it also attractive to independent adults? Then what job will the highshoolers have? If I've got to pay a full adult wage anyways, I'm probably not going to employ a highschooler.
> It creates a deadweight loss. In this example are kids that would benefit from working, at low wages, from both the experience and income and they're left out. There would be useful work done that probably just doesn't get done, creating harms in the form of missing products and services.
Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school? If they need to supplement their parents income doesn't that just mean that their parents salary is not high enough? It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers, enabling them to depress salaries, because somebody trying to support a family would not take the job. I find it interesting that often the same people (not saying you are) arguing against immigration because the immigrants take away jobs, argue for children to work because it's a "great experience".
> Now sure, non-existence of a minimum wage would create other harms and losses so there is a balancing act-- but in the special case of students being discussed here those other costs don't apply. (and that's also why in practice there are minimum wage exceptions like the 'youth minimum wage program').
> Why would kids benefit from working? Shouldn't the benefit be from going to school?
There is a purely 'academic' educational advantage, -- it's like asking why should there be chemistry lab, shouldn't chemistry be learned by pure manipulation of field equations??-- People learn different things by studying a subject and doing a thing, and some students learn better one way or another. Most people will learn more from splitting their educational time among multiple approaches than from using only a single approach.
But also our goal in education should be the creation of complete adults. We do try to artificially teach a broader set of life skills in school than the purely academic, e.g. that's why assignments have deadlines if all we cared about was teaching material there would be little reason for any deadline other than the end of the semester. Communication, timelyness, responsibility, etc. are all part of a complete education and aren't as well taught via the contrivances of school.
As they say the difference between theory and practice is that in theory they're the same and in practice they are not the same.
It's also the case that the education environment is very unlike the rest of our lives. Most educational environments are very means driven-- you must use the answer you're taught or its wrong, but life is much more results driven. The problems set out for you in education have usually tidy answers which can be arrived at via the tools you've already been provided, in work force (or life in general) that is often not true. In school the (or at least at the sub-gratudate level) the teacher knows best, they're only asking you questions that they know the answers to. In work it's not uncommon that you know best. Your boss knows what he wants done, sure but you know the facts on the ground. If someone asks you a question in work they do not know the answer. Work is also artificial (like.. you have a "boss"??) but at least it's an artificial thing that you'll likely be part of for most of your adult life.
Now one could simulate more 'work like' learning, but education already takes up an incredible amount of time. Being able to spend endless time on unproductive education is a luxury of wealth that some cannot afford. Even if the state were to provide some of it during schooling, an employer still prefers employees with _experience_ and for those who aren't born into every opportunity having early experience can make a real difference.
Work is also not just something people have to do-- the right work in the right conditions is something that people love to do. It can contribute additional meaning in their lives. I would personally rather mop a floor for an hour transcribe a bunch of geometry identities that I could just look up. The grinding school work is nothing that hasn't been done before, it doesn't improve anything in the world, it's hardly something to be proud of (except perhaps if I do remember it a year later, which often students don't). At least if you mop a floor you get a clean floor and the pride of completing a task that in appreciated by others.
And of course, having money that you earned and coming to terms with managing it, spending it on things you want without having to justify it to others and regretting some of those decisions is also an important part of education. And I think it's useful to have the experience of putting in effort to get it, that putting in more effort can get you more of it, and so on. Of course, wealthier families can and do also provide this education for their children through other means... but if there isn't excess money in the household for Jr. to be paid it for chores or whatever, then they'll have to work outside the home to get it.
> It seems the only benefit of allowing kids to work is to the employers
Kids aren't generally great workers. Part of the reason we don't have more youth employment in the US is that employers generally aren't falling all over themselves to get more of them. There are some benefits to employers that make it worthwhile, e.g. occasionally you get a minor employee that is much better than you'd be able to score as an adult, you make your business a more integrated part of the community, and sure you may lower some labor costs particularly for menial tasks that it might be harder to hire a capable adult for. It's also the case that many adults like working with young people, the instinct to teach is human and not just confined to professional teachers.
With respect to your immigrants comments, I think if you talk in terms of immigrants who are taking jobs that generally citizens don't want, who are operating just seasonally or for a limited time, etc. you'll see a lot more support ("well I don't mean THOSE immigrants"), and that situation is more analogous to youth employment.
But beyond that to the extent that youth employment has some negative effect on the broader adult labor market I think most people would feel it to be justified as an investment in the future of their community. The same argument ought to apply to immigrants too but immigrants aren't seen as part of the community unless they've integrated enough and then, presumably, they stop being seen as immigrants. :) For kids it's obvious that they grow up to adults, it's less obvious to people that many immigrants to America 'grow up' to be Americans (by whatever definition makes a person feel good about them being here :) ).
Before this gets me flamed as thinking of young people as lesser, I don't. Different people feel differently about different tasks at different points in their life.
I read an article a while back about a fad teaching method for reading that is devastating reading skills in places where it's used. It focuses on teaching children the skills that illiterate readers use to compensate, e.g. guessing words from context, looking at the pictures, memorization of standard books. Instead of sounding things out or other traditional tools.
A point the writer made is that reading phonetically is utterly mind numbingly boring for adults, but it is absolutely not boring for a child that is learning to read-- they make continual incremental progress, they can quickly unlock new words. It's very exciting for them.
It's not just limited to children. In my teens through twenties I loved doing sysadmin stuff, wiring up and configuring this program to that, scripting this operation or that. Decades later that stuff is boring to me, and my own systems are more likely to be left in the configuration equivalent of a blinking 12:00 except where required.
It was exciting while I was learning stuff and could feel my mastery increasing. But having reached whatever level I reached, it's now just boring. I'd rather mop a floor, at least some far away developer isn't going to botch my mopped floor with a security update in the middle of the night.
In any case, my point is that a task which is menial to an experienced adult isn't necessarily so to someone with less experience.
In my country, with a minimum wage, highschool students work seasonal jobs (including McDonalds) at a decent pay.
They are hired because it's expected they will only work 2 months, and are needed because we have 5-8 weeks of vacation per year and employers can assign 3 of those (usually in summer, when they hire students).
Jobs calibrate pay in the same sense that employees calibrate labour: employers strive to pay the least they can for the most labour; employees strive put in the least labour to get the most wages.
A job which doesn’t offer enough to live on will be less appealing to those trying to live on their own, but fine for high schoolers.
High School students do not work full-time, by definition, and so therefore are never going to earn a "living wage" in the sense that that phrase means.
The whole "but kids" argument about minimum wages is a pointless distraction from the actual debate, which is "should there be full-time adult jobs that pay so little that those doing it are living in poverty?".
Personally I think it's obvious that the answer is "no", and any society that answers "yes" needs to take a good long look at itself and what it's actually trying to achieve.
But such a distinction is worthless - there's no rule anywhere saying only teens get minimum wage
It's a completely bullshit argument that says "see, it's not so bad" but purposefully pointing to the small subset of people who are in the most advantageous circumstances.
It would be like me arguing the Great Depression wasn't so bad and then pointing to some group of people who were immensely wealthy and therefore managed to get through the Depression mostly unscathed. It's just... bad arguing.
Why should age matter at all if the person is doing the exact same job? Children already get paid less than minimum wage when there are jobs they legally can't do. The owner of the McDonald's I worked at in high school loved hiring 14 and 15 year olds because he could make them do every single menial job there except cook the food. They were run ragged same as the rest of us for the bonuses only the manager got.
> How can anyone justify paying a high school kid who works part time most of the year a living wage.
Pretty easily. Once you consider how productive an even below-average worker is in the US, the idea of running a business so poorly that you can’t make bank while paying somebody a living wage seems pretty embarrassing.
While the “teenager” line is often vilified as a sign of unfettered greed (which it is), in my experience it’s been more of the respite of folks with so little business sense that it boggles the mind that they would be an employer.
I personally can’t imagine saying “I am incapable of producing much more than seven dollars per hour with the help of the time, body and mind of a person that I interviewed and selected to work at my business” out loud with a straight face, there are some folks that gleefully proclaim stuff like that as if they’re talking about something other than themselves
High average productivity can just as well come from aggressively not employing anyone that doesn't drive the revenue per head-count forward. I suggest that the below-average workers productivity is inflated by aggressive fat cutting-- and that we'd be better off as a society if we made more room for novice and trainee employees. But this has gone off-topic of the subject of minimum wage because very few people actually receive minimum wage in the US.
> I personally can’t imagine saying “I am incapable of producing much more than seven dollars per hour with the help of the time, body and mind of a person that I interviewed and selected to work at my business”
An inexperienced new employee can easily be a net loss for a long time as they mess up more stuff than they produce while they learn. This isn't tolerated by a lot of modern business philosophy so the jobs and industries that work like this increasingly just don't exist in the US.
> An inexperienced new employee can easily be a net loss for a long time as they mess up more stuff than they produce while they learn.
Yes. It is an employer’s responsibility to train or fire employees that are harmful to the business. If they can’t manage to do that, that’s a failure to operate the business at the most basic level.
Insisting that there exists x or y groups of employees that intrinsically deserve to be paid less than a living wage is tantamount to asserting that an employer or manager is entitled to have their planned failure to operate the business subsidized by that same group that they insist on hiring.
Again, it’s not just greed behind the “[teenagers]* don’t deserve a living wage” spiel. It also tends to expose laziness, lack of imagination, entitlement, an active disdain for work, a lack of grasp on business fundamentals, etc. In other words, a lack of the bare minimum aspects of intellectual capacity and discipline necessary in somebody tasked with employing people
* it is not uncommon to see “teenagers” replaced with all manner of groups that any incompetent manager or employer might foist the responsibility for their failures upon. There is nothing special about them as a group
The only response I want to read about this starts with, "Historically, the lurch and jerk of technical progress, paranoia manufactured by ubiquitous media, government financial overreach, and heavy-handed speculative projections shattered the ability of many organizations to establish meaningful turnover and generational handoff ..."
Easily. If the job cannot pay a living wage, it should not exist. We'll get there with structural demographics eventually (pushing up wages as labor supply diminishes as the fertility rate continues to rapidly fall), but it would be nice if we could not make so many people suffer in the interim ("time value of life"). Several states are removing child labor restrictions due to "labor shortages," for example. So, you have to starve the beast of underpaid labor.
We have the means, it's a choice. We could make a better choice, but if we don't, demographics dynamics will make it for us.
I mean, I know it's not a perfect solution. This was just one of those talking points people use to justify keeping the minimum wage low, or eliminating it all together.
These same people will also say "these minimum wage jobs are for people just entering the workforce, not people in their 30s/40s etc."
The bare minimum standard we should hold ourselves to is that a 40 hour work week should be able to put a roof over your head and food on your table. The fact that the minimum wage is continuously supressed is absurd.