Help me understand the impact of a $15 minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say that an employer has a moral obligation to pay his workers a living wage - $7.50 an hour ain't it. Can't pay a living wage? Then you need to do something else.

That may be, but an employer has a higher moral obligation to his family. Furthermore, the employer has a higher moral obligation to repay any debts and to offer his customers a product/service at a competitive price. It's irrational for any employer to overpay his employees beyond the economic value of their labor because such an employer would be violating his higher moral obligation to his family, lenders, and customers.

Greed. Those higher moral obligations you're describing are greed. You're arguing that an employer should prioritize the greed of himself and others over ensuring his employees don't need food stamps to feed themselves.

It is entirely possible for a business owner to 1) pay a living wage 2) pay his bills and 3) offer a competitive price on their product. The fact that you think 1 must be sacrificed in favor of the others is really sad. There are plenty of businesses already making this work.

Again, people in other countries get paid a living wage, and have Healthcare as a basic right. Why do we not think it possible to achieve this for our country? Aren't we supposed to be the greatest country on earth? Or do we still only mean for it to be great for wealthy white people?

Please tell me this country that has a “living wage” minimum that lets 19 year olds afford 2 bedroom apartments, has free health care, and low unemployment, especially youth unemployment.

Who said anything about 19 year olds affording 2 bedroom apartments? You can't make your point without being ridiculous? Maybe your argument sucks.

How is it ridiculous? The 2 bedroom apartment is EXACTLY the standard that has been used in these arguments before. Activists crying rivers because minimum wage workers can’t afford 2 bedroom apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than 2 percent of hourly workers in the U.S. are paid the $7.25 minimum wage or less. Most employers, even most retail, food, and service businesses, already know they have to pay more than the current minimum wage to recruit and retain good workers. Businesses that insist on paying the minimum wage complain that they have high employee turnover and spend a lot of their time hiring and training new employees, but they are too stupid and/or too cheap to pay a little more to keep their productive workers.

The main effect of the minimum wage increase would be for those currently making $10 to $15 per hour. That is a much larger segment of wage earners than the minimum wage workers. The $10 to $15 group is full of women who are underpaid for the quality and responsibility of the work they perform.

You need to get your logic straight, do businesses know or not that they have to pay good enough wages to recruit and retain good workers? How can they know this at the minimum wage level, but all of a sudden lose their logic in the $10-$15 level? I mean, when you go out looking for wine, are you suddenly unwilling to pay a fair price for a $15 bottle while you were perfectly willing to pay for a $9 bottle? How does that logic work in your mind?

I guess if you are buying 100 bottles of wine for a party, you might then consider whether or not the difference in cost is worth it.

Well, it would depend on the party (job), wouldn't it? The very fact that you would *consider* the value derived from a $15 bottle of wine is directly counter to the PP's claims, which is that some people out there are only willing to pay $12 for something they derive $15 of value. Not only that, but a majority of the people behave this way, causing a distortion in the pricing of labor in this segment. This is simply illogical, with no basis in reality.

Not every bottle is a $15 bottle of wine. Some are $9 bottles of wine and will never grow to be $15 bottles of wine, or even $40 bottles of wine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than 2 percent of hourly workers in the U.S. are paid the $7.25 minimum wage or less. Most employers, even most retail, food, and service businesses, already know they have to pay more than the current minimum wage to recruit and retain good workers. Businesses that insist on paying the minimum wage complain that they have high employee turnover and spend a lot of their time hiring and training new employees, but they are too stupid and/or too cheap to pay a little more to keep their productive workers.

The main effect of the minimum wage increase would be for those currently making $10 to $15 per hour. That is a much larger segment of wage earners than the minimum wage workers. The $10 to $15 group is full of women who are underpaid for the quality and responsibility of the work they perform.

You need to get your logic straight, do businesses know or not that they have to pay good enough wages to recruit and retain good workers? How can they know this at the minimum wage level, but all of a sudden lose their logic in the $10-$15 level? I mean, when you go out looking for wine, are you suddenly unwilling to pay a fair price for a $15 bottle while you were perfectly willing to pay for a $9 bottle? How does that logic work in your mind?

I guess if you are buying 100 bottles of wine for a party, you might then consider whether or not the difference in cost is worth it.

Well, it would depend on the party (job), wouldn't it? The very fact that you would *consider* the value derived from a $15 bottle of wine is directly counter to the PP's claims, which is that some people out there are only willing to pay $12 for something they derive $15 of value. Not only that, but a majority of the people behave this way, causing a distortion in the pricing of labor in this segment. This is simply illogical, with no basis in reality.

If I’m paying $15 rather than $9 for a bottle of wine, it better be worth the difference. The $9 would be a starter wine and the $15 bottle a better wine. Why, otherwise, would you suddenly pay $15 for the same wine as you get for $9?

We are not arguing about the economic value here. The assumption here is that the $15 is paying for $15 worth of wine (or hourly wage). The argument is that while some people are willing to pay $9 for a $9 worth of labor, all of a sudden they are only willing to pay $12 for $15 worth of labor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sorry you find having to pay your employees a living wage so confounding.

Telling that you assume that anyone arguing for the business owner is a business owner.

Far from it. My dad started a business that didn't succeed. He paid his employees when he was not paying himself. He sold the business to someone who had the capital to invest. Because of capital, the business became successful. Took dad years to get back on his feet financially. It was his dream, and it didn't work out for him. But, that is why I know how hard starting a business can be. Spouse and I have only worked for others. I never had any desire to start a business--I know how hard it is to make a buck. You obviously do not.

I actually am a business owner. And I don't have any employees yet, because I wouldn't be able to pay them what I feel is fair. Instead I do a lot of the work myself, and I hire contractors for specific tasks within projects.

The business owner is not entitled to the success that comes from building a business AT THE EXPENSE of paying their employees a living wage. I really don't understand why that's so hard for you to grasp.

What an asinine way of looking at employee expenses. The real reason you don't have employees is that your business is not demanding enough to the point where the marginal value of your time is high enough to justify the expense of an employee. When you offer to pay someone a market wage, and he/she accepts, you are not building your business at the expense of that employee. He/she is not producing any excess economic value that you are not paying for. If the employee is not productive enough to earn a "living wage", that is not because you somehow cheated or swindled him/her. By this same token, you think your customers care whether your business is generating a "living wage" for you? They don't. They pay for your products/services based on how much value they derive from your product/services, and the availability of alternatives on the market.

It doesn't surprise me that you have failed to grasp these fundamental ideas of how capitalism works within a liberal society, given the modest size of your business.

Okay random internet person. You think you've devined everything you need to know about me and my business from a single post to pass judgement, but I'm asinine? 😂

You read that short post I wrote and gathered that this was an attempt to capture everything there is to know about you and your business? Wow, that's how little you think of yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less than 2 percent of hourly workers in the U.S. are paid the $7.25 minimum wage or less. Most employers, even most retail, food, and service businesses, already know they have to pay more than the current minimum wage to recruit and retain good workers. Businesses that insist on paying the minimum wage complain that they have high employee turnover and spend a lot of their time hiring and training new employees, but they are too stupid and/or too cheap to pay a little more to keep their productive workers.

The main effect of the minimum wage increase would be for those currently making $10 to $15 per hour. That is a much larger segment of wage earners than the minimum wage workers. The $10 to $15 group is full of women who are underpaid for the quality and responsibility of the work they perform.

You need to get your logic straight, do businesses know or not that they have to pay good enough wages to recruit and retain good workers? How can they know this at the minimum wage level, but all of a sudden lose their logic in the $10-$15 level? I mean, when you go out looking for wine, are you suddenly unwilling to pay a fair price for a $15 bottle while you were perfectly willing to pay for a $9 bottle? How does that logic work in your mind?

I guess if you are buying 100 bottles of wine for a party, you might then consider whether or not the difference in cost is worth it.

Well, it would depend on the party (job), wouldn't it? The very fact that you would *consider* the value derived from a $15 bottle of wine is directly counter to the PP's claims, which is that some people out there are only willing to pay $12 for something they derive $15 of value. Not only that, but a majority of the people behave this way, causing a distortion in the pricing of labor in this segment. This is simply illogical, with no basis in reality.

If I’m paying $15 rather than $9 for a bottle of wine, it better be worth the difference. The $9 would be a starter wine and the $15 bottle a better wine. Why, otherwise, would you suddenly pay $15 for the same wine as you get for $9?

People are not commodities. Start there and maybe you can begin to understand.

Nice try. People are not commodities, no, but labor is. When an employer hires an employee, the employer is not buying the employee's person, but his/her labor. If you can't even grasp this basic concept, stop deriding others for not understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say that an employer has a moral obligation to pay his workers a living wage - $7.50 an hour ain't it. Can't pay a living wage? Then you need to do something else.

That may be, but an employer has a higher moral obligation to his family. Furthermore, the employer has a higher moral obligation to repay any debts and to offer his customers a product/service at a competitive price. It's irrational for any employer to overpay his employees beyond the economic value of their labor because such an employer would be violating his higher moral obligation to his family, lenders, and customers.

Greed. Those higher moral obligations you're describing are greed. You're arguing that an employer should prioritize the greed of himself and others over ensuring his employees don't need food stamps to feed themselves.

It is entirely possible for a business owner to 1) pay a living wage 2) pay his bills and 3) offer a competitive price on their product. The fact that you think 1 must be sacrificed in favor of the others is really sad. There are plenty of businesses already making this work.

Again, people in other countries get paid a living wage, and have Healthcare as a basic right. Why do we not think it possible to achieve this for our country? Aren't we supposed to be the greatest country on earth? Or do we still only mean for it to be great for wealthy white people?

You are not going to trust anything I say about greed, so here's an excerpt from Psychology Today:

Although a blind and blunt force, greed leads to superior economic and social outcomes. In contrast to altruism, which is a mature and refined capability, greed is a primitive and democratic impulse, and ideally suited to our culture of mass consumption. Altruism attracts passing praise, but really it is greed that our society rewards, and that delivers the material goods and economic growth upon which we have come to rely.

Like it or not, our society is fuelled by greed, and without greed would descend into poverty and anarchy. And it is not just our society: greed lies at the bottom of all successful modern and historical societies, and political systems designed to check or eliminate it have all ended in abject failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Help me understand why you think we should weep for businesses that failed to compete, but we the same compassion shouldn't apply to their workers? Why is it okay to tell a low wage worker to buck up and work to get a better job, but we can expect a business to buck and do better for their employees?

Businesses are a vehicle for someone to build wealth on the backs of other people. If you're going to do that, can't we at least ask them to pay those people enough to eat!?

Very few people are paid minimum wage. Some people are working for extra cash--like teens. Some are working to supplement other income. Few people remain in the same low level job all their lives. Have you listened to Biden talk about his Dad---"a job is not just about a paycheck, Joey, it's about dignity."

Where is the dignity in working 40 hours a week or more, and still being on food stamps? Where is the dignity in hearing people debate your economic worth, utterly refusing to acknowledge your humanity?

One look at Trump and you know, without a doubt, that dignity is earned and not inherited. Where is the humanity in assuming that someone, though healthy and able-bodied, lacks the basic agency to determine his/her own fate, and must rely on the charity of others?

Dp- nice sentiment as long as you support able bodied people banding together to leverage the worth of their labor.

[Anonymous]

Why only $15 an hour?

Why not $20? Or $25? Or $40?

If this is about giving someone the opportunity to have a comfortable life, then $40 an hour is far more realistic.


Change my mind.

[Anonymous]

There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why only $15 an hour?

Why not $20? Or $25? Or $40?

If this is about giving someone the opportunity to have a comfortable life, then $40 an hour is far more realistic.


Change my mind.

Why? You just made our argument for us! $40 it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a troll in here who doesn’t believe in minimum wages at all, and likes to use economic jargon to scare people off. But here’s the truth. Employees in low wage jobs typically do not have adequate bargaining power or leverage to find better wages, particularly in paces without a ton of economic activity, and that’s why we’ve had minimum wage laws in every developed economy. Stop arguing with a stupid people. We are keeping those laws and the wage will go up, because it has to over time. It actually has a perverse effect when it is too low—it’s a drag on everyone else making more than the minimum. It’s a drag on the entire economy. So yes, in an ideal randian utopia, everyone will be able to bargain appropriately for their labor. That doesn’t exist. Go away troll.

Trust me, that troll doesn’t support collective bargaining under any circumstance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why only $15 an hour?

Why not $20? Or $25? Or $40?

If this is about giving someone the opportunity to have a comfortable life, then $40 an hour is far more realistic.


Change my mind.

why not 0$ why not charge people to work so they can have self esteem? Why not allow slavery, if people sell themselves freely into it? Why have rules on safety in the workplace? people can just get another job if their workplace is unsafe. Could it possibly be because $15 is where the political will seems to be these days? It seems a compromise that the center left and center right can stand?

Face it: people like you want laws to protect the rich but none to protect the poor. I bet you are in favor of non-competition clauses in contracts, anti-union laws that prevent people from using organization instead of wealth to enforce their interests, anti-discrimination laws because the wealthy should be allowed to have no blacks at their workplace if that is what they want, and no funding for education for the poor because that would take money from you and give it to the undeserving. Well, our strength isn't money. It is the willingness to work together. Yell at us all you want, but we won't give our power away. You are certainly not giving your power (wealth) away.

(and I've never encountered any poster who put "change my mind" in their post who wasn't a troll, so I don't know why I'm answering this)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why only $15 an hour?

Why not $20? Or $25? Or $40?

If this is about giving someone the opportunity to have a comfortable life, then $40 an hour is far more realistic.


Change my mind.

why not 0$ why not charge people to work so they can have self esteem? Why not allow slavery, if people sell themselves freely into it? Why have rules on safety in the workplace? people can just get another job if their workplace is unsafe. Could it possibly be because $15 is where the political will seems to be these days? It seems a compromise that the center left and center right can stand?

Face it: people like you want laws to protect the rich but none to protect the poor. I bet you are in favor of non-competition clauses in contracts, anti-union laws that prevent people from using organization instead of wealth to enforce their interests, anti-discrimination laws because the wealthy should be allowed to have no blacks at their workplace if that is what they want, and no funding for education for the poor because that would take money from you and give it to the undeserving. Well, our strength isn't money. It is the willingness to work together. Yell at us all you want, but we won't give our power away. You are certainly not giving your power (wealth) away.

(and I've never encountered any poster who put "change my mind" in their post who wasn't a troll, so I don't know why I'm answering this)

[Anonymous]

It’s 15 dollars because the median hourly wage in the US is around 19 bucks today. Half of all hourly workers make less than that. But 42% make less than 15. At least I think these facts are relevant. I’m sure someone somewhere has written at length about why 15 is about right.