The debate "You are paying your boss" was started by
May 2, 2016, 1:38 am.
41 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 33 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
RyanWakefield posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 17 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 13 arguments, Pressthebest posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, MrShine posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
RyanWakefield, sagitario, creator, styletile, Theswimmer, Donald_J_Trump, mayank883, confident, paradox, Max and 31 visitors agree.
dalton7532, Pressthebest, DiamondPerfect, debateboy, MrShine, sean, mohasan, moneybagboyz123 and 25 visitors disagree.
oh absolutely. 15 $ in some parts of the nation would be wayyy too much, a variable rate is what is needed, even within states.
something like 2 full time minimum wages can afford for rent somewhere within a 1.5 hour public transportation distance at 30% of their salaries. 2 bedroom.
-I think the best way is to create better jobs, with better wages, in order for wages to rise. In places like Seattle and New York, it might be better to raise the minimum wage to like 12 because there is a higher cost of living. While, it might be better for in places like wisconsion to have a lower minimum wage then seattle becuase it is alot cheaper to live there. My point is it might be better to leave the minimum wage up to the states because all states have higher and lower cost of living and other numerous factors. The wage issue is not really one size fits all.
as I said, 15 across both cities and rural is silly and an over simplification of policy for campaign slogans for consumption by masses.
I couldn't find the article on Seattle I was speaking of but I did find
which shows the same chart every site was pointing to as the downturn point and added another month of data showing recovery, as well as also showing a chart of the same employment across the state. showing a weaker recovery from the downturn.
either way my point that it is booming was wrong, my apologies. however it doesn't seem to be doing much damage either so far. I'd like to change approach. instead of defending the benefits of minimum wage, what do you think will happen in the absence of a minimum wage? incomes have not been rising for almost all Americans, not just the minimum wage class. costs have been going up and more and more Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
if this trend continues, what will happen when 70 or 80% begin to start feeling the pinch? how long until our economy collapses.
now I agree min wage is a horrible band aid. education would be nice, but that's for the next gen long term real fix. the here and now, education does nothing. unless you have an alternative solution...
also we will still need people to do the crappy jobs, and those people need to afford housing and food as well. of we keep pushing them out, we may find ourselves without necessary services as they give up.
I am glad you enjoy our conversations.
-I do not think raising the minimum wage is the answer, especially to 15. The minimum wage should be a starting wage for all people in the workforce. If you want a better wage, get a better job and a education.
-Where did you get your info on Seattle's job growth? I found many that said otherwise than you.
-If people cannot get/find a job, that is what the government is for. The same goes when they do not make enough money. -Dalton
nonono. I wanted to handle YOUR points 1 at a time. I am very much enjoying our discussions.
Ok. I will let you handle TWZ or whoever you are debating. I will leave. :(
dalton, I would love to address all your points but can we do it one at a time?
your idea that raising wages will cost job is the same cry businesses have been voicing for every regulation suggested for decades. rarely has their complaint actually been accurate. if ever.
as for wages specifically, Seattle and a few other cities have already set a $15 minimum. the restaurant industry did lose jobs, but every other industry hired more people. their economy grew.
I have suggested that increased business can offset the higher cost, but your loss of jobs prediction and my increase business predictions are just speculation. whatever happened, in reality, higher wages helped, not hurt the economies WHERE THEY WERE ALREADY ENACTED.
I'm not saying 15 is the right fit everywhere but the concept of raising wages does not automatically equal loss of jobs.
I am saying people should not get 15 dollars an hour for being a frycook. If you are making an honest effort to work, go on government assistance until you can find a better job with a better living wage.
so you think someone should be able to work 40 hours a week and still be starving? that is what you are arguing for when you say that minimum wage shouldn't be a livable wage.
a blanket $15 per hour probably isn't the best solution. there are places where you can live on $8 per hour. and there are places where 15 is barely enough to have a roach infested apartment and not starve to death.
-I think there is certain things in this discussion that should be noted that are not said.
-Small busnisses sell to the local economy, and big businesses tend to sell to the global economy, Ford and ect.
-People open up businesses to gain profit. When you raise the minimum wage, business owners gain less profit because they have to pay more per capita. Therefore, people will be laid off.
-Raising the minimum wage may or may not reduce the amount of people on welfare, but it will surely increase the unemployment rate. If there is a factor I am leaving out please tell me.
-The minimum wage should be a starting wage, not a living wage. People should not be paid $15 an hour for being a frycook.
-We need to create better jobs with better wages and better pre-college education, rather than, raising the minimum wage. That will help most certainly.
those restaurants are my appeal because they are the majority of low wage jobs.... i think that makes them a very good candidate for discussion considering their market share.
I understand your reservation with it, however I disagree. low wage pay and benefits do not vary that wildly, and with such a large group of businesses, averages can say alot. all their payroll is reported to the government and the #s are ready available and very useful.
your argument that the pro living wage businesses are just acting heuristicly is an assumption, not an argument from logic. and how could you assume that the majority of small businesses are acting in such a reckless manner.
" If a small business supports a policy that harms small businesses, it is because they are one of the few that survives or believes it will."
once again you are assuming that the policy will hurt them and thinking from that base assumption. if they think they will be one of the few that will survive, then only those few will support it, not a majority. unless you really think the majority of small business owners are wrong.
I made a logical argument. small businesses don't have the luxury to pack up and sell their wares overseas. their long term survivability depends on the sustainability of their neighborhoods. which means they need people to be able to afford to patron their establishment, even if it means a little pain short term.
big businesses do not have such an essential connection to any individual neighborhood and have shown the affordability and even eagerness to move at the first sign of difficulty.
big business will be hurt, but mom and pop shops will prosper. that is why they support it, not because of some desire to experiment.
Sorry, it is you with the misunderstanding.
If I were to list mom and pop restaurants, disregarding what I say about benefits or wage, that is but one location of many different mom and pop locations, therefore anecdotal. We've discussed this, dude.
In terms of support, I've provided logic on how small businesses that support the Raise in minimum wage are an availability heuristic, in locations and receiving more than touching the line between profit and loss. Therefore, you are arguing on a stance that is untouchable, or rather not based in reality. My arguments are tangible, debatable, and even have that base in reality.
Support and result are two different things. If a small business supports a policy that harms small businesses, it is because they are one of the few that survives or believes it will. Big businesses don't want that understandably large loss, which in the end is a larger net loss than gain, but there would be an increase in shopping in these bigger locations, more so to maybe a monopoly. I've established this beyond what individual support says, which your focus is on.
Mom and pop restaurants are on a pick and choose basis. What does this say when these restaurants are your appeal?
individually owned locations are the majority of locations. you did misunderstand completely.
if I was talking about a single specific individual location, yes that would be just 1 location in the country, but my statement was that individually owned locationS (plural) are the majority and are located throughout the country. I am baffled by your confusion here.
" then this means that the raising minimum wage hurting small businesses holds more power, because then that power defaults to the big businesses you rue, proposing less competition in cost and quality as well"
I am not following how raising the minimum wage will hurt small businesses AND help large corporations. I said the exact opposite and it seems that both large and small businesses agree with me since most small businesses are for a living wage, while big businesses are lobbying fiercely against it...
Individually owned locations are "one point in a country," which I stated, meaning that I didn't misunderstand. That is all that is worth discussing now, because even if you did establish that the entry level pay or minimum wage pay of locations was the majority (small businesses being a majority) then this means that the raising minimum wage hurting small businesses holds more power, because then that power defaults to the big businesses you rue, proposing less competition in cost and quality as well. On all fronts, the points made by me support me and yours miss the mark.
You misunderstand my statements, so my involvement ends here.
TZW, you're pretty smart, if the debatewars election was more than a joke, I'd run with you as vice president. No, you'd probably be next in line, this app bugs frequently and I've had to uninstall and reinstall to get in. I may have more time soon, so leaving isn't an option I'm considering yet, but unfortunately there will be less of me.
and no. you shouldn't be able to support your family on 5 hours worth of work a week. you should be able to find full time work, and employers who play the loophole game by screwing their employees like that should be jailed, just like slum Lord landlords.
I am not deciding the majority. I linked to a site that stated what the majority was. and cleaners aren't cheap, but you aren't paying the cleaners. your paying their company. the price the company charges you isn't what we are discussing. we are discussing how much the company pays their workers and whether or not that number makes sense within the economy.
I must have misunderstood you. I didn't name a place or specific restaurant. mom and pop kitchens isn't the name of a chain but a description of any business owned by individual owners and not a faceless corporation. they do exist throughout the country.... I'm not sure what the confusion is.
I don't think small businesses would suffer at all from a minimum wage hike. last I checked 3 out of 5 small businesses nation wide support a living wage. just like ford said "I want to make sure my employees can all afford to buy my cars." It is the big, already established corporations with no dependence on the long term health of any specific neighborhood who will suffer the most from min wage laws. small business will thrive.
get another job means another 4 hour round trip commute. traveling far for 5 hours of minimum wage work.... that is economically stupid. your only increasing the burden on the most vulnerable people. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them decide that risking jail is better than being a complete wage slave. wake up travel to job a, travel to job b, go home just in time to not get enough sleep, repeat til you die. sounds a lot like the life of a slave. I'd personally just grab the torches and pitchforks at that point. think of the consequences of your "suggestions"
A business would not go out of business by removing people who cost them money. You say they would but that makes no sense. That's why I used factories for their increase in pay, how did they combat that? They cut people.
That's great for the people who get to stay, what about the unemployed people now. You had to cut a person just to keep one, so I place with 100 workers now has 50. Which in return if the company provides benefits, the benefits cost will go up so you'll either have more people cut or make sure people don't get benefits.
Ultimately all that happens raising wages is creates unemployment and benefit cutting. Unlike the hypotheticals you're talking about what I said is exactly what happened when other jobs wages were raised. The same will happen with the restaurant industry too. Chains will take over and people will be replaced with automative systems, because it's frozen food anyway. The wages and bennificial change that was wanted will have happened with most people who demanded it unemployed.
If we don't establish neighborhoods, it's comparing a poor neighborhood's work for a rich person's rent. We can't do that, only generalize, as individuals are "here and there" cases. However, the effect on business is a clear arguing point, and as you have said before it is logical. I also turned your statement which you said wasn't "based in reality" by providing points to look at, strategies for survival beyond longer hours, and established opportunity is available. Raising the minimum wage is arguing on a "deserving" basis, but when looking at what can be "given" we prove that a $15/hr wage is impossible. To summarize, that is check and mate by itself. Arguing along your lines, I also established that material doesn't end at pay, icing on top. Finally, if you believe that some places have an impossible to survive economy, why do you think more money fixes that? Why not suggest stores, businesses? A forest has no living economy, but a shopping mall has a thriving economy. A gold pile in the middle of nowhere just gets moved elsewhere, unless invested in turning the nowhere into a money making somewhere.
Are you deciding the majority? Cleaning individuals aren't cheap, and that is specialists, in the case of non specialists, it is an added task to someone's job, which isn't only that job.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I mean. If I listed a place odds are that same name place isn't across the country, so listing a place is one point out of the country. Anecdotal, why do I even have to keep saying that? It's like the same mistake isn't learned from.
Small businesses, while the tangent on benefits was to establish a minimum wage isn't the only option for some, isn't the only means, there are multiple. Would you mind going back to how small businesses would suffer again, or is it the benefits tangent that gets you there. Differentiate the points, or we can drop benefits if you like.
Won't provide full hours? Get another job, sucks but that's how it is. Should someone who is given 5 hours of work at an entry level position be given enough to support a family of five? And I purposefully listed places that provide benefits for part time. Already established the differences in living wage and how much entry jobs cover.
I'm talking about service industry.
what factories? what was the situation? what time period are you talking about? factories have a completely different set of factors than a store front.
what is the relation of factories to what we are talking about? please work on making legible arguments.
Then why didn't factories go out of business?
then that business will fail because it won't have enough staff to handle the increased business.
They don't give full hours and full benefits because it's cheaper. They'll save money where they can, and when minimum wage is raised they'll just cut their whole staff, just like I said about the factory workers. It's smart business and like the debate topic says, you are paying your boss. Once you begin to cost your boss money you will be let go.
I'm sure some cleaners working in the Hamptons probably do make bank. but please stop bringing up the exception, let's keep this to the vast majority that does not.
and what do you mean mom and pop kitchens aren't all across the country? they absolutely are.
"pro business" deregulation has helped give corporations a huge competitive advantage over small businesses so the number of mom and pop shops is definitely declining, but they are still the majority.
also corporate chains, as I stated, rarely give full time work because they will have to give benefits. so they are just as bad.
Benefits was a tangent, but to show that minimum doesn't have to go without support.
Small businesses that aren't corporations can have extra factors and even payraises, and I know cleaners that make bank. However, listing small mom and pop kitchens are local, anecdotal, and don't go across the whole country. It's part of starting a business as well, the difficulty to pay individuals and have benefits. I actually brought the issue of difficulty in paying, unless you believe small businesses to be run by greedy bastards that could pay their employees more or provide a better position for their workforce. Also, it would be impossible to list the situation of every place, which takes too much time. However, listing even a few provides grounds and shows that asking for some kind of benefit won't be 'laughed off'.
The lowest options can also be gone without, there are plenty of places that will have an employee clean the shifter even if they aren't a cleaner. Basically, the job is expendable, and it's difficult to reward an expendable job.
you listed a few specific jobs, but food service makes up the vast majority of low wage jobs, and most of those are mom and pop real, kitchens, not corporate fast food warm up kitchens. house keeping is another massive chunk of low wage jobs and they also receive practically no benefits. (besides mandated absolute minimums )
my examples may be the lowest option, but it's also the by far most common option, and the reality for the vast majority of low income people.
your examples are mostly corporations who often refuse to give full time to their low wage workers, and their staff makes up the bulk of our welfare population. if we mandate them to pay a living wage we can lower taxes and eliminate the majority of the welfare state.
the benefits argument is a tangent you created, the main argument is the balance between rent and wage. there is a limit to how many hours people are willing to travel for minimum wage.
This wraps up the benefits argument. I've listed specific places in those regards, and you lower the standard and file with emotional appeal. The toil of work isn't simply "bathroom cleaner" or "cook", and opportunity isn't the lowest option possible,someone's bound to skim the bare minimum, but no one is held hostage in their neighborhood or at their job. Work or die is true, but someone will hire you, and if you are an individual who is willing to survive work for money, that is true for any entry level position. Concerns without base is just that, and I've provided reason for confidence that anyone can get a job in places that support in more ways than one. If people aren't hiring, it is a different issue than employment salary or benefits. Further concerns are just that, with no leg to stand on.
start entry positions in what fields? are those unskilled work, cause entry level usually means you go up. unskilled work has no career mobility. if you clean toilets well the most you can hope for is to squeeze more toilets into your day.
A quick search will tell you that there are plenty of entry level jobs that have benefits. There are plenty that also aren't at the bare minimum but are well under the requested $15. These benefits could also be held part time depending on the company. There is no leg to stand on by saying that minimum wage stands by itself in most cases, that raising the minimum wouldn't hurt small buinsesses, or that a living standard is unrealistic. Please re evaluate your position before you reply, and provide fresh content. If you could propose a way that small businesses could make it, that is a good start.
most of them do not provide benefits for part time workers, and they keep many workers off that full time cut off.
my job is fine thank you
Nemiroff face the fact your job is highly expendable.
Haha, anecdotal evidence again?
Here's some facts, there are businesses that provide health insurance to some degree, even if it is a part time job (REI, Barnes And Noble). These are generous places, so you know it isn't impossible. Surely, not all positions of Chefs will get benefits. However, there are places that would. UPS, Starbucks, think about dental, retirement (that might not last though), gone in turn for a speck of money. And paying for your own insurance on some things can be a bitch. No insurance and you're really SOL.
the only benefit most non fast food cooks get is UNpaid time off which was mandated in 92 (I think).
go to any regular restaurant and apply to be a cook, ask them what benefits you get and they will laugh at you.
the benefit is employment and that's the most wage slaves can hope for.
Oh yeah, and point between payment and benefits, it wasnt a demonstration on what people can get, but what options are available even among the minimum wage workers, benefits that can provide relief on ends that save money rather than give. I argue that if more money has to be given, cost effective benefits would get cut.
Never said these places were imaginary, simply to imagine, or remember if it so pleased. Time is an issue you bring up constantly, and more hours working wasn't so much of a suggestion as is a fact of life sometimes. Shacking up with multiple people does help though, the base cost is split and a minimal increase in utilities mixed with the ability to get food gets places. In the case of caring for multiple people who can't, it's circumstances that are sometimes beyond the usual. Minimum wage can support one person by themselves just fine. This is the point I will make, the issues mentioned are life problems, which require time management, skill in your field, and dedication to promotion. Yeah, shits going to be difficult, and yeah, we should promote living standards higher, but the most common thing people think is more money. Shit, minimum wage might be the only job some people can get, and they might have to work hard to stay afloat, but realistically, minimum wage isn't intended to be a living wage for a family of three and up anyhow. It's entry pay for some positions, which can go up, and usefulness gets rewarded. Unfortunately, if you aren't very useful, you can't get more than the promise of staying afloat or alive, which minimum wage is capable of. Yeah, about those kids to care for or the uncle with a bad back, if all you have is Wal Mart receipt checker, you're not likely to be a hero or a benefactor for anyone. Listing issues people have to deal and live with doesn't change this. But it isn't impossible to leave these things if you search for the right people to give you the right knowledge or the right position.
There is always going to be certain difficulties to having things done, all people really need is food and shelter. If you can't rise economically, it's not wrong. If you can't survive where you are working or living, instead of demanding where you are to give more, plan to go elsewhere, plan to work in groups, plan to promote yourself, no way it'll be easy but impossible isn't the word for it. To say that the minimum wage should be raised, you need to say it is impossible to survive normally, extenuating circumstances get little to no credit, because it is "minimum", not a save all wage.
I want to know why you haven't worked harder on saying that small businesses wouldn't cut jobs, hours, or that they wouldn't suffer. Overall, complaints for individuals vary, but businesses are quantifiable.
this isn't an imaginary horrid neighborhood but a very common situations. the official term is "food desert" and it exists in many, if not most, low income neighborhoods.
low income neighborhoods do not offer many jobs. the places that hire low income work have rent that low income workers cannot afford. so travel time is a fact of life, and can get in the way of cost saving activities like cooking yourself, or self improvement activities like pursuing an education to better yourself. even if you don't work 12 hours, but a regular 8 hour shift with 4 hours total commute and 8 hours of sleep leaves you with only 4 hours to shop, cook, eat, errands, home repairs, picking kids up from school, going to appointments, and everything else life throws at you. some of those things are doable but trying to learn and move up is absolutely impossible under those conditions.
up the number of hours or give someone multiple part time jobs and multiple extra commutes and the math just doesn't add up for all the tasks you guys "recommend" low income people do.
as for what I would choose? that's a silly question, I'd need to know how much less I'd get paid for what kind of benefits before I can answer. but if we are talking low income people, it's the absolute minimum pay, with the absolute minimum, if any, benefits. there is no choice, you take what you are given and your only choice is quit and go hungry.
You did list real problems, but at the same time these problems rely on imagining terrible neighborhoods with few jobs and in turn little pay, while at the same time seeing cities of opportunity with bigger pay and more hours. That's how it's going to be, but these cities will not be the same, they will be next to each other. The issues are everyday life too, everyone worries about their food or rent or what's best, but the questions only play on those fears then provides an easy solution. Only specific examples had much meaning, and the issue on stores however that is expected as well. The suggestion lacks substance, and assumes a standard which has been established to be different for everyone.
Tell me, would you accept a job that pays half as much, but has benefits and insurance that saves money, or a job that pays twice as much with little benefits and no insurance? Most people would pick the former. With increased minimum wage, something has to go, because not all businesses will have more success when people have more money to spend. Some certainly can, but for those only done by necessity what short of raising the cost of things is left? Odds are the unpaid but useful bits will be cut out, and replaced with cash.
I can understand the grocery store issue, though I'd have to say that business owners won't open in places that are bad investments. Odds are, in the next neighborhood over there is a grocery store where things are cheaper, and initially opening in the neighborhood is more expensive. With things that are store bought, there is plenty of do it yourself soups, pastas, sandwiches, and more at economical prices and quick assembly. Food isn't as much of an issue as the amount might be. It's not good to skip a meal, but depending on the hours worked and how much is on their hands, a person might regularly skip a meal. That doesn't mean they don't survive, but not a good thing either. This is emphasis that people are eating and surviving, and with individual circumstances this may not even be the minimum wage, 40+ worker, there can be a lack of jobs or given hours.
Location can be an issue, but I live in an area between the poor and rich, so it is no surprise when the poor roll past my street to get to where the money is. In fact, the city has plans for a line to cut through the busy places, making it easier for people to commute to jobs. If commuting is a problem, maybe we should take a look at public transportation problems or solutions. Also, if rent is an issue (it usually is, my place is cheap though), then it is because of the location. High traffic locations bring jobs, and the expected living is higher, so it's no surprise when the money demanded for an apartment or house is higher. Living with family, friends, or multiple people makes more sense. Not enough people try this.
Small business owners that do support a new minimum wage are popular, and the availability heuristic for them is higher. It is often times small business owners in good neighborhoods that have plenty of money to spend that can say these things, because a comfortable worker in a comfortable atmosphere can do well, not always but they can. Small business owners in these destitute neighborhoods mentioned.... they don't survive. You did mention how grocery stores aren't in the areas. You also listed Seattle, though not all cities are well off or in as good of a location as Seattle. I know if minimum wage was raised at my job people would be laid off. It isn't hard to find business that shut down either based on this. I don't know your job, or your employer, but it's safe to say that there are plenty of businesses treading a careful line of profit.
can you please address the fact that there are often no grocery stores or supermarkets in low income neighborhoods?
how are people supposed to get groceries to cook?
and with the long hours and long travel time when do you expect people to cook? maybe if rent was affordable within reasonable travel distance of low wage work then it would be a more reasonable request.
also 15 minimum wage has been in place in Seattle for a while, the city economy is going strong, and most small business owners are for a living wage.
your arguments make sense logically but are not grounded in reality, just like trickle down economics.
No market means that the services can't be provided. In fact, the neighborhood issue works the other way around. Eating out isn't cheap, it's. convenient, and just like employees if it is convenient to do something, such as automate service, it's done. The issues regarding minimum wage is that there will always be jobs to do something, and time is expensive, time is money, but how much is not so easy as an established living standard. Living standards between different families vary on size, disabilities, insurances and medications, locations, and so on. Therefore, thus would mean different pay for the same job would be demanded. It's not so easy to raise the minimum wage without repercussions. Small businesses with the bare minimum of workers would suffer most, because some businesses do not make money every night, they sometimes lose it. Imagine the amount a business has to pay for double the minimum wage staff, for no gains on the end of employees. Sucks, doesn't it? It doesn't also affect those making over the proposed new minimum wages, the back breaking jobs of some nurses and demanding hours of sushi chefs unaffected. There are people that make well over minimum wage, but are stuck in the same position based on hours, their individual needs, and the policies by which they are paid (think waitresses and waiters or delivery drivers when tips are expected and factored into pay, some places pay well because of the individuals receiving the service, not the business. since this isn't every night, pay can be awesome or shitty).
Small businesses suffer most, and the living conditions of those over the proposed minimum do not change.
what their job entails is up to their employer, not you. and if you think it's just heating up food then you are clueless.
There is a simple means for higher wages, the same factories did, replace them with automative systems. Why spend $15 and hour if they can be replaced. It's just heating up frozen food anyway.
and that isn't some hypothetical. many poor neighborhoods are considered food deserts with no markets and little more than a McDonald's and a Chinese spot anywhere within reach.
does that apply when there are no supermarkets in your area and your car has been broken for 2 years?, you can't afford repairs
higher wages will mean slightly higher prices, but there are other effects too.
I repeatedly say more people will have money to visit shops. more business will mean higher end of the day profits even if each sale makes less alone. people seem to ignore that point for some reason.
also rent won't go up due to wages as it's mostly valued through scarcity. about 50% of the costs of poor people will be unchanged while their income goes up. that's a lot of extra money, and poor people have plenty of essential things to spend it on.
the fact that higher wages means higher prices is a clear fault in the system. The government should incentivise employers to pay their workers better and give them better living conditions.
It is convenient to go out and eat but it's more affordable to eat at home and raising wages means raising prices and raising prices means more people eat at home. What is one of the first things a financial manager asks when you have finance issues? How much have you been eating out.
also, have you ever heard of food deserts? most low income neighborhoods don't have supermarkets, and can't afford cars.... so how do they get groceries to cook?
when you look at all the factors, the poor in this country are just screwed from every angle.
it's not always a convenience when both adults work full time.
day care used to also be a convenience. now it's almost a necessity
Many people do, for convenience though. Once convenience becomes too expensive, it's no longer worth it.
the sheer amount of unemployment would wreak the economy. kitchens employee a very large number of populations.
and despite your personal opinion, many people use their services across the country.
The economy would not collapse lol. People can cook from home they even make burners to plug into semis now.
we are in a service economy, if every cook stopped working our nation would collapse.
manufactoring is mostly dead already anyway, it'll be a relatively tiny number of jobs.
oh, and try cooking when both you and your spouse work 12 hour shifts with a 2 hour ride each way.... and the kids need some attention too
I still value a vehicle or a stove over a hamburger. I can 6 hamburgers for the pride of one as it is now. If every cook stopped working tomorrow we will manage the same, if every factory worker stopped we wouldn't.
well... the factory worker can put 2 of the thousands of pieces of your stove together, you'd have to get the entire factory staff to actually finish the job.
factory work is not skilled labor, they aren't mechanics.
Not worth me spending extra for my food because that's what you do. I can cook in front of my stove for 30 mins or an hour so the point of a cook is convenience, and nothing more at least a factory worker can put my stove together or my car together those would be higher necessities then just convenience
and if most of the restaurants you eat at "cook" frozen food, stop eating at Applebee's and start supporting your actual local businesses
you cook at home for 30 minutes, maybe an hour. try standing in front of a stove for 12 hours with total chaos going on around you constantly.
I can cook better at home then 99% of cooks. It's a job that only exist because it's convenient to have somebody else cook. It is more then flipping burgers, most people use everything frozen now a days so now you also have to use an oven. $15 an hour just gets rid of the convenient part about it because a burger will now be $13. No one is going to spend $13 so, ultimately it just puts more people out of work.
all factory work payed garbage. it was unionization and movements like the fight for 15 that made it a good job post industrial revolution.
and most factory work is line work. you stand by a conveyer belt and keep putting the same 2 parts together.
kitchen work is a lot more than just flipping burgers btw...
especially when you go to non fast food kitchens. # of hours and travel time should also be considered.
Working at any factory usually takes alot more skill and job experience, and they work alot harder too. That is why they get paid more, and that is how it should be. Yes, there are some factory jobs that are easy, and they do not pay alot either.
and flipping burgers is a small part of their job. the main part is the hustle of getting customers in and out within minutes with no errors. that makes it a lot more difficult.
how is basic factory line work any more complicated? put piece A into hole B, repeat forever. sounds even simpler than just flipping burgers. you have to time the burgers if you don't want them to burn or be raw. factory work is monkey work with no thinking.
when I asked if bankers deserve the salary of 100s or 1000s of doctors you said we should not be asking whether or not the deserve it. that it wasn't our place. yet here you are asking me to justify the burger flippers while you still haven't addressed my request to justify the bankers.
When you work, you do not work to stay. Do you honestly think somebody should get 15 dollars an hour flipping burgers? No. You work at places like that so you can gain some income, so you can get your life situated, and plan for the future. Therefore, you can gain better income. That is why.
I never said prices won't rise. I'm saying buying power will still increase, even after prices go up, cause not all costs will go up, as I already explained.
why shouldn't be the minimum be enough to live on?
The boss pays you. It is not the other way around.
-If we raise the minimum wage, prices will raise also. People who say otherwise are not telling the full story. It only makes sense you raise the minimum wage, prices will raise also.
-The minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum amount a company pays you, so you do not get abused. It is not supposed to be a living wage.
and they aren't doing the bare minimum. they are working long hours cooking your food, building your homes, and supporting every network of every industry at the very fundamental levels of our society.
they are unskilled and a dime a dozen, but they work very hard and deserve to share in the fruits of the economy they sustain.
if you've read any of my other threads, you'd know I completely agree with you, however education is a solution for the next gen, for us it is too late.
if people cannot afford to support the businesses around them the businesses will shut down or leave. we have let the difference in income get to high, and now we need the stupid minimum wage band aid as a quick fix for an urgent problem.
and the people can pay off their debts, buy an air conditioner, fix their car so they can have more work options. move out of the room they are renting and get an apt. for the people in the most debt have the most urgent need to spend money, it will instantly revitalize the economy.
and if nothing else changes, the people will be in the same crappy conditions, but will be in those conditions through their own income and without government support freeing up millions in tax dollars for reinvestment or debt repayment.
If people are struggling to pay their rent and get out of debt, raising their wages doesn't mean they will be out purchasing merchandise and eating out at restaurants more often.
The most important part of the business is not how much you're making, but instead how much you are spending. If you pay your employees more, you are making less. How do you fix this? Depending on how big the business is, close down a few stores or just lay off a few people. Going from 4 cashiers to 3 will put you right back into competition with the other companies.
Minimum wage is not meant to be a wage to live off of. It's not meant to pay your rent, buy you clothes, and maintain your car. Minimum wage is what your 14 year old daughter gets after her day at highschool so that she has some money and can hang out with her friends on the weekend. Minimum wage is just meant to be "something" and that's exactly what it is.
Instead of fighting for smaller jobs to get higher pay, why don't we come up with a solution to help more people get an education so they can compete for a better paying job?
Do you want to live in a country where the average citizen is perfectly fine with doing the bare minimum because it's still enough to cover a rent, car and some fun times?
I disagree that that is the only possible outcome. it may even be the worst move a business can do.
at least in the service industries, a large portion of our service based economy, reducing employees will make your business less able to serve customer and may loose to competition.
indeed they may need to higher more workers to handle the increased number of customers now that many more people can afford to buy things from you.
chances are the result will be slightly higher prices, if the increased total sales won't offset the loss of profit per sale completely.
The right often forgets the increase in sales that will occur with increased buying power.
This is getting a little off topic now. Now we're debating about raising wages.
If we do this, the employers lose out on gains which in turn forces them to lay off several people.
So now you have to question what is better; less people working but making more money, or more people working but making less money?
only things that are expensive due to production costs will go up in price.
anything based on scarcity (real estate, rent, oil) will stay relatively unchanged. for the poorest people rent can be as much as 50% of their income.
Even with increased cost on many of the items they buy, the really expensive stuff won't change much and buying power will increase.
Here in Canada, when the minimum wage goes higher, everything else will go higher too. It's almost as if nothing has changed. You make one dollar more per hour, but now that shirt costs 5 dollars more, and when you sell it to a customer, your boss makes 2 dollars more (assuming the shirts costs 3 dollars to make, I don't know, whatever).
Not everyone deserves to be able to start a business. It's the same as saying "with minimum wage now, people don't have an oppurtunity to purchase a million dollar mansion".
and I agree, minimum wage is a bandaid, not an ideal fix. but without it our economy will collapse in the short term.
without a decent wage, how are people supposed to save up to open a business. it's impossible either way.
and several cities already shot their min wage straight to 15 without much adjustment time. the restaurant industry did suffer, but every other industry made gains since people had more income to patron those businesses.
First off, not everyone can have an equal oppurtunity to start a business. Either you work your way up until you can afford it, or you're just born into a family with money. To own a business is a privilege that is earned (or handed down to you), so there's nothing you can do about equality there.
There has to be a minimum wage in which all companies and businesses must follow, so the wage is not the issue. Prices of houses, apartments, car insurance etc is going up and that's what needs to change. If minimum wage jobs were given more money, then there would be no incentive to get an education and compete to get a job that pays similar.
Raise the mandatory pay for minimum wage jobs and watch many businesses go under. Closing down plenty of fast food restaurants, merchandise stores etc. The current minimum wage is much better than having no job at all.
And sorry about being in America, I'm in Canada :)
as for getting a loan to start a business, you try to get a loan with a paycheck to paycheck balance in your bank and no assets in your family history lol. you won't get one.
this is why the US has the social mobility of many 3rd world countries. the American dream has become a lie and drastic changes are needed to rebalance the equation.
not absolute equality, but not this is broken, both morally AND economically.
that is a very basic view of how business economics works. you are considering only the most basic factors of the issue and is completely not realistic.
first off, low wage workers have very little power to negotiate salary. there are an endless supply of these workers and they require little skill or training. any that strike will be quickly replaced and they will go hungry. they don't even bother trying unless it's somehow organized nationally, which is extremely difficult and only works on huge chains stores.
in theory a strike is exactly what they need, as you said. In practice it would be suicide and the dumbest thing they can do
does that mean their work does not deserve fair compensation? it's unskilled but it's often high stress (especially with employers constantly reminding them of their replacability) and sometimes even body breaking work.
now for the wider consequences.
much low wage work exists in big cities where rents are skyrocketing. The workers are already traveling 1 to 3 hours each way to get to their 12 hour shifts making absolute garbage. that's 14 to 18 hours gone from their day. All that leaves time for is an inadequate amount of sleep. no time with their children and family, no time to meet right wing condescending advice to better themselves. Continue raising costs without matching pay, and gentrified them farther and farther from their jobs and at some point there will be no point in going to work. it will be impossible. They will either turn to massive numbers of beggars, huge rises in crime to survive, or a mass exodus of workers from this already population challenged nation with an impending retiring baby boomer generation.
it will be the end of our economy.
eventually market forces will adjust, but our economy will take a massive hit and many people will suffer. in the case of the exodus, recovery may take a long time.
by the time you figure out the value of these workers it will be too late.
Your boss invested his money to start this business and he or she came up with the original idea to put the business in service. So yes, he or she will charge a customer x amount and pay you less than x amount to perform the service. If you were to be paid equal to the cost of what your boss is charging, then your boss's company makes no money which defeats the purpose of having a business in the first place. Without the business, you are without a job.
The way it is now, your boss makes money and you make money also.
you perform a service worth x amount and get payed less than x for it, whilst your boss will still your service for more than x
How do you get 2 likes?
I pretty much agree with you.
What's your argument here? Are you helping your boss make money? Yes. Your boss came up with an idea that worked and as long as it's working, he deserves the right to hire who he wants and pay them accordingly depending on country, city, situation, job, union, non union, etc etc etc....
Are you paying your boss? No, not at all. If you have a job, it's because that's the job you feel you are qualified to have at the moment and you will make the money you are qualified to make. You do not give your boss any money, but rather your boss gives money to you. You performed a service which aids their idea/business and you get rewarded.
To me it sounds like a pretty alright deal
I will gives you an anylasis of how the economy works. A man wants money or to help the general public with his ideas and products. It is usually money, so he opens up a business. He hires workers to do work. If the customers like the products the businessman sells and the workers distribute, the company starts to gain profit. When the company starts to gan profit, he pays his workers accordingly. If the workers do not like their pay or feel like they or being payed lower than they should be, they would usually go on strike, protest to the federal government for better standards, or they might find a new job.
-If a person wants to open up a business, they would find a product they would like to sell to the public. They would get some money from previous jobs to open up the business or they would get a loan. After that, they would need a building so they would hire people to build that for him/her. Then, he would hire workers to work around the store or the factory. Then, after the workers work they get paid accordingly.
-Without business owners without ideas, there would be no jobs for potential workers.