Minimum wage: $15 NOW!; or 15... eventually
Today the Mayor, Ed Murray, signed into law a bill passed unanimously by the city council yesterday that raises the
minimum wage in the City of Seattle to $15 / hour.
This is a big deal, it is estimated that 100,000 people in Seattle make less than $15/hour. There was tremendous political exertion by all parties starting at the beginning of the year to make this happen. There are lots of details, like when, how fast, what's included, etc etc, which I'll cover tomorrow.
Meanwhile I gave a link to several good news stories on the subject,
here's one that I found particularly helpful in conveying the tone of the months-long debate.I hope it works out a well as they hope it will.
It won't. Econ 101. It's been proven thousands of times all over the world that you can't vote yourself prosperity. The supply curve still operates the same, around the world, no matter what a city council may believe.
Every time someone makes an argument for this, ask yourself, why not $20? Why not $25? Ask yourself, how did central planning work in the old USSR? How has it worked since it was ended in China?
I ask myself as an employee, am I generating enough revenue to justify my salary? Because there is nothing else this comes down to, and if employees are not generating that, there are three choices: either you're fired, your hours are cut back, or the business closes. There literally are no other choices.
So, what's employment in Seattle today?
Lower than the national average. That's a good starting point for this kind of project. Historically, higher minimum wages result in a rise in unemployment. That's what is expected from the supply curve. Let's see what happens in five years. I expect it to be up about 2-3 points and I expect city tax revenues will be
down. Good luck to the poor, who will be the first and the worst affected by this. If I turn out to be wrong I will happily admit it.
I thought that employee productivity is up in the US and company profits were also up. But wages are not also rising because unemployment is so high, companies don't have to increase wages to retain their employees. The teeming masses of unemployed waiting to get their foot in the door is enough to keep workers from leaving a low paying job.
So how do you convince companies who are sitting on piles of cash to share that cash with the workers? Either through new jobs or higher wages? Companies will always hold on to profits and not share them if they can get away with it.
Reminds me of how the Republicans have long chanted that small businesses are the job creators, but that's a fallacy. It's consumers who are the job creators. If demand goes up, businesses have to hire to meet that demand. They don't hire more and pay more just because they are good guys. If they have a huge profit, they are going to keep that profit if they can. They only create new jobs if they can't meet current demand. They have no choice but to hire. And they will never give a raise unless they are afraid they will lose their employees. And they aren't afraid right now because there are so many willing to jump in and fill the spot of the current employees.
A minimum wage takes some of the power from the companies and gives it to the workers.
Some small businesses may be on such shaky ground that they have to do layoffs, but I bet most will be fine. And the large ones will have no problem.
There will be a small increase in inflation because of this. Probably seen in the apartment rental market the most. (Because that's local and a finite resource.)
The real problem isn't that minimum wage needs to be raised, that won't do anything to address disproportionate wealth.
CEOs make from 10 to 422 times the median worker's pay
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income/full-list
It's essentially a Ponzi scheme, the current idea that executives can make as much money as they can while paying employees as little as they can. Just like growing corn over and over on the same plot of ground without replenishing the soil will lead to a dust bowl.
I still maintain this is a backlash from Dr. Spock's scheduled feeding myth rather than nursing on demand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/income-inequality-salary_n_4748066.html...
There literally are no other choices.
...
The real problem isn't that minimum wage needs to be raised, that won't do anything to address disproportionate wealth.
CEOs make from 10 to 422 times the median worker's pay
http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income/full-list
It's essentially a Ponzi scheme, the current idea that executives can make as much money as they can while paying employees as little as they can. Just like growing corn over and over on the same plot of ground without replenishing the soil will lead to a dust bowl.
I still maintain this is a backlash from Dr. Spock's scheduled feeding myth rather than nursing on demand.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/income-inequality-salary_n_4748066.html
Winner Winner chicken dinner
Winner Winner chicken dinner
If you were aiming for CEO salaries with minimum wage increases, you have just shot your friend in the face. This affects small business and government just as much as big business.
Let us know how the prices of hamburgers react to that $15/hr minimum wage...get those sperm-covered $1 McChickens while you can...
If you want real money you need a
bullshit job.
Let's say I own and run 'Quirk's Books' (my business, my property).
If I wanna pay a buck an hour, can't see how that's any one's concern (exceptin' for me and the person who takes the buck per hour job).
If I wanna pay 50 bucks an hour can't see how that's any one's concern (exceptin' for me and the person who takes the 50 bucks per hour job).
As the owner: seems to me I ought to be the one determining the value of any job I need done.
If I value poorly, then I'll have no employees (or, what I have will be for shit).
If I over-value, then my business suffers by way of my misuse of cash.
If I'm wise, then I pay what my lil economy can bear.
If I'm unwise then -- one way or another -- I go out of business.
Not seein' the need for mandated wages.
If I'm wise, then I pay what my lil economy can bear.
If I'm unwise then -- one way or another -- I go out of business.
The great strength of humans over other animals is that we share our wisdom, and try not to let the unwisdom of some take down the efforts of others. Enron, for example: yes, their unwisdom did eventually put them out of business, as the system says must happen. It also, however took down thousands upon thousands of innocent individuals who never made any of the unwise decisions that killed their employer.
The system as you describe it does work, but is unnecessarily brutal. If the lessons of the past are lost, your system is a valid backup. But we are stronger as a whole when we take what we've learned in the past and use it to mildly regulate the unwise individuals who crop up in the present.
I agree with HQ but for slightly different reasons. Raising the minimum wage won't change income disparity as long as Quirk's books wants to make X* his employee's minimum wage. As one goes up so will the other.
If a certain group of people want all the marbles then the number of possible marble games drops to *ahem* 1%.
:D
A guy who makes 365 times what his 50k/yr employee makes doesn't buy 365 times more groceries, cars, beds, shoes, and so forth. He stockpiles money and doesn't stimulate the economy.
If he could be contented with making 20 times his 50k/yr employee then he could hire 340 more employees or double the pay of 680 his 25k/yr employees and they for certain would spend the shit out of that money and that would help the economy.
Ultimately you can't legislate for morality or against greed, if you could no one would try to find loopholes.
If you were aiming for CEO salaries with minimum wage increases, you have just shot your friend in the face. This affects small business and government just as much as big business.
But pulling a Dick Cheney
is another choice.;)
If there were standards, like* "income over $500k" or "businesses with more than 30 employees" it wouldn't screw the little guy.
* to be determined by experts later
Let's say I own and run 'Quirk's Books' (my business, my property).
If I wanna pay a buck an hour, can't see how that's any one's concern (exceptin' for me and the person who takes the buck per hour job).
If I wanna pay 50 bucks an hour can't see how that's any one's concern (exceptin' for me and the person who takes the 50 bucks per hour job).
As the owner: seems to me I ought to be the one determining the value of any job I need done.
If I value poorly, then I'll have no employees (or, what I have will be for shit).
If I over-value, then my business suffers by way of my misuse of cash.
If I'm wise, then I pay what my lil economy can bear.
If I'm unwise then -- one way or another -- I go out of business.
Not seein' the need for mandated wages.
Leads to a return to feudalism. And that's OK. Feudalism lead to the French Revolution.
One pundit suggested, in the case of Seattle, it may displace the poor as over qualified people suddenly find it worthwhile to work a low-level job in town. The poor are forced to commute to the burbs as that is where the low-level jobs for poor people are.
If I wanna pay 50 bucks an hour can't see how that's any one's concern (exceptin' for me and the person who takes the 50 bucks per hour job).
...and the person who found a book they want to buy, but, it costs a thousand dollars, so you can afford to pay that worthless book shelver $50/hr.
"It also, however took down thousands upon thousands of innocent individuals who never made any of the unwise decisions that killed their employer."
If a body can't or won't self-employ and therefore works for others, then a body should cling to the idea of 'employee beware' (or, 'cover your own ass', or, 'keep one eye open all the time').
To assume your employer is honest or wise or simply a good business person is foolish.
Seems to me: an employee should always expect to be screwed over by the boss.
#
"we share our wisdom"
Wisdom unfortunately laced with insanity much of the time, so much so it's hard to distinguish one from the other.
##
"you can't legislate for morality or against greed, if you could no one would try to find loopholes."
I think lookin' for loopholes is distinctly human and unavoidable as evidenced by every murder and rape and act of theft (all of which have been legislated against, largely because each is 'wrong' [immoral]).
"...and the person who found a book they want to buy, but, it costs a thousand dollars, so you can afford to pay that worthless book shelver $50/hr."
As I say: 'If I over-value, then my business suffers by way of my misuse of cash', and, 'If I'm unwise then -- one way or another -- I go out of business'.
Of course, if the idiot is willing to pay me a grand for a book, who am I to turn him (or her) away?
Of course, if the idiot is willing to pay me a grand for a book, who am I to turn him (or her) away?
Who said the idiot was gonna buy the book? Hell, only your shelver could afford it. And she/he ain't gonna buy it. They're gonna take it to the bathroom, and, read it on their break.
Now, you can't even sell the book, it's been in the bathroom,
it's marked.
Now, you can't even sell the book, it's been in the bathroom, it's marked.
Nice Seinfeld reference! :D
...and the person who found a book they want to buy, but, it costs a thousand dollars, so you can afford to pay that worthless book shelver $50/hr.
Not if all the buyers are making $50/hr. And the books would not have to increase in price at all if bookstore owners who make $100MM/year reduce their own income.
[Pete Hogwallop]That. Don't. Make. No. Sense.[/Pete Hogwallop]
Nice Seinfeld reference! :D
Thankee, ma'am.
I'm also hearing snippets of conversation in my head:
What do you do?
I program CNC milling machines for the aviation machining industry.
How much do ya make doing that?
Minimum wage.
It reminds me somehow of
Anne Elk.
Except her theory was correct.
Massachusetts too.
The measure, which won Senate approval last week, would raise the state's $8-per-hour minimum wage in three increments to $11 per hour by 2017. Routine procedural votes are needed in both chambers before the bill is sent to Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick for his expected signature.
Future increases in the minimum wage would not be automatically tied to inflation, as an earlier Senate version of the proposal would have done.
~snip~
He said many of the state's estimated 600,000 minimum wage employees live in poverty despite having full-time jobs, while others are forced to work multiple jobs to support their families.
~snip~
The minimum wage would rise to $9 per hour on Jan. 1, 2015; to $10 on Jan. 1, 2016; and finally to $11 on Jan. 1, 2017.
The measure would also gradually raise the minimum wage for tipped workers, such as restaurant servers, from the current $2.63 per hour to $3.75 per hour, a 31 percent increase and the first since 1999, Conroy said.
That's much more reasonable than Seattle's plan. If the number is kept within a certain level, like the tying to inflation they suggested, it won't have as much of an impact.
Everything is tied together you know. To imagine it won't have any impact, or that it will hurt only the targets we hope for and not the ones we don't, is just wishful thinking. We constantly bolt things onto the economic plane for our various reasons and sometimes it's good. Other times the plane no longer has lift and then the entire economic engine may falter. (oh no mixed metaphor!) When there is no economic growth, that hurts the poor most of all.
And we actually want some low wage jobs. Traditionally, things like fast food are called starter jobs. The jobs are easy to do, don't add a ton of value, but wind up teaching people how to hold a job. How to apply, interview, how to get there on time and groomed, how to manage weekly pay, how to orally satisfy your bosses, etc. etc. Not all low wage jobs are taking advantage of people, and if they offer a boost to a better job, that's great. How many of us had a first job in fast food? (raises own hand) It paid shit, right? (nods) But it was good for you? Part of life? And when you realized you didn't want to do this your whole life, that was part of it too? A little motivation to make sure you didn't get stuck there. Exactly. S'a good thing.
It reminds me somehow of Anne Elk.
Except her theory was correct.
And it was hers, too.
That's much more reasonable than Seattle's plan. If the number is kept within a certain level, like the tying to inflation they suggested, it won't have as much of an impact.
Everything is tied together you know. To imagine it won't have any impact, or that it will hurt only the targets we hope for and not the ones we don't, is just wishful thinking. We constantly bolt things onto the economic plane for our various reasons and sometimes it's good. Other times the plane no longer has lift and then the entire economic engine may falter. (oh no mixed metaphor!) When there is no economic growth, that hurts the poor most of all.
And we actually want some low wage jobs. Traditionally, things like fast food are called starter jobs. The jobs are easy to do, don't add a ton of value, but wind up teaching people how to hold a job. How to apply, interview, how to get there on time and groomed, how to manage weekly pay, how to orally satisfy your bosses, etc. etc. Not all low wage jobs are taking advantage of people, and if they offer a boost to a better job, that's great. How many of us had a first job in fast food? (raises own hand) It paid shit, right? (nods) But it was good for you? Part of life? And when you realized you didn't want to do this your whole life, that was part of it too? A little motivation to make sure you didn't get stuck there. Exactly. S'a good thing.
Not having a mimimum wage also has a negative effect - people working full time, sometimes in more than one job and still being too poor to feed their families. That is wrong. And the idea that they are free not to be exploited is ridiculous, if the alternative is starvation and destitution. You can get away with not having a minimum wage if there are adequate support systems in place through benefits - if the choice is between subsistence or taking that job, then fair enough. That's a true choice.
Not having a minimum wage and not having adequate safety nets in place forces people to accept exploitation.
Some jobs are starter jobs, sure - but that's usually about the age of the person, not the nature of the job. A 17 year old, living at home with his parents and earning $8 an hour is one thing. A 40 year old with children to feed doesn't need a 'starter' job, he needs a living wage.
Over here we scale the minimum wage according to age - so a 'starter' job is only a starter job for those at the start of their working life. It's still shit and far too low - and there is growing pressure for the living wage, rather than just a minimum wage.
And if paying a living wage means you can't afford to hire the staff you need, then your business model is broken, your business is not really solvent it is just pretending to be, with the shortfall resting on the backs of people who can't afford to say no.
And yeah - it will probably put up prices of cheap burgers - but that's ok, because if working people are earning that bit more then they'll be able to afford those slightly more expensive burgers.
And if the people who run those burger bars and cheap shops are worried that they won't be able to employ enough people, because it will put the prices up and customers won;t be able to afford what they're selling, then they should be supporting decent welfare payments for those who aren't in work. Because damn near every penny of that welfare gets spent on their products.
Instead, though we (I include the UK in this) opt for a race to the bottom - wages stagnate, and benefits are slashed, so prices have to be slashed to bring in customers, and the low prices mean that wages have to stay low, and so on, and so on. And as low as those wages go, there will always be a pool of people who will take those jobs, because they have no other option if they want to remain fed and housed - and so there is no competition driving wages up.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, remuneration and bonuses go through the roof, and are justified with the idea that in order to hire the best you have to pay high.
There is very little evidence that minimum wages damage employment levels. Very few companies are unable to hire the staff they need because they have to pay a couple of dollars more per hour. It just means they have to find their savings elsewhere. As long as there is no minimum wage and no benefits to speak of, then there is no incentive to look at less palatable savings - it is always easiest to skimp on the workforce.
There is very little evidence
I think I've seen enough evidence. I could be wrong. This is one of those things where the truth is hard to find, because the sources we read will tell us the story we like to read. Still, the first Google result for "minimum wage unemployment" is this:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/31/study-states-with-higher-minimum-wages-had-higher-unemployment/
Researchers looked at labor data from both the nineteen states that as of 2013 had enforced minimum wages above $7.25 per hour and the thirty-one states that had minimum wages equal to $7.25.
Overall, they found that just a $1 increase in the minimum wage was “associated with a 1.48 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate,” and a “0.18 percentage point decrease in the net job growth rate.”
Well yeah, it's a righty website writing about a vaguely righty organization's study, but it's just math they're doing in that study, and people could check their math.
But can they be sure it was the minimum wage and not other economic factors working in parallel?
I was trying to find, but couldnt - there was an article about a month ago which seemed to show evidence to the contrary.
The thing is - a 1.48 % increase in unemployment to me seems less damaging overall than huge swathes of employed people not being able to afford food.
Also worth considering - is that a permanent increase in unemployment? Or is it a temporary rise immediately following introduction of the requirement that then settles back down as the minimum wage becomes accepted as the norm?
So when states have some unique industry like fishing, which runs into unique problems like government limits/empty nets, driving the unemployment rate for that state higher than it's neighbors, that's an effect caused by minimum wage? I don't think so. There are too many factors contributing to the state rate to be saying it's cause and effect.
...restaurant servers, from the current $2.63 per hour to $3.75 per hour, a 31 percent increase and the first since 1999,
$2.63? :eyebrow: $3.61? :eyebrow: Before taxes. :facepalm:
Not an unbiased source, but it brings together lots of studies (including a 2013 study by the University of Chicago:
Today, the most rigorous research shows little evidence of job reductions from a higher minimum wage. Indicative is a 2013 survey by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business in which leading economists agreed by a nearly 4 to 1 margin that the benefits of raising and indexing the minimum wage outweigh the costs.
Paul Krugman, Princeton University, February 2013: “Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But there’s evidence on that question — lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many ‘natural experiments’ here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.”
In Focus: Two Leading Studies on Minimum Wage and Job Growth
Study: Do Minimum Wages Really Reduce Teen Employment? (2011)
Summary: Examines every minimum wage increase in the United States over the past two decades—including increases that took place during protracted periods of high unemployment—and finds that raising the wage floor boosted incomes without reducing employment or slowing job creation. The research demonstrates how a body of previous research—one frequently relied on by business lobbyists who oppose minimum wage increases—inaccurately attributes declines in employment to increases in the minimum wage by failing to sufficiently account for critical economic factors. [NELP Summary]
Study: Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders (2010)
Summary: Provides the most sophisticated study to date of the effects of increases in the minimum wage on job growth in the United States. Taking advantage of the fact that a record number of states raised their minimum wages during the 1990s and 2000s – creating scores of differing minimum wage rates across the country – the study compares employment levels among every pair of neighboring U.S. counties that had differing minimum wage levels at any time between 1990 and 2006 and finds that higher minimum wages did not reduce employment. [NELP summary]
Lawrence Katz, Harvard University, April 2011: “This is one of the best and most convincing minimum wage papers in recent years.” (Source)
David Autor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, April 2011: “The paper presents a fairly irrefutable case that state minimum wage laws do raise earnings in low wage jobs but do not reduce employment to any meaningful degree. Beyond this substantive contribution, the paper presents careful and compelling reanalysis of earlier work in this literature, showing that it appears biased by spatial correlation in employment trends.” (Source)
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/job-lossVery few companies are unable to hire the staff they need because they have to pay a couple of dollars more per hour. It just means they have to find their savings elsewhere. As long as there is no minimum wage and no benefits to speak of, then there is no incentive to look at less palatable savings - it is always easiest to skimp on the workforce.
Let's get it out of the way -- I think there should be a minimum wage set by government. I think it's society sending a signal to the markets that workers should not be taken advantage of, which is always a danger, and here is a level we have kind of agreed on, below which we think you're kinda sorta taking advantage.
Also, I brotherylove you D, don't ever change.
~ with that outta the way ~
I agree that the new labor situation will put pressure on things other than workers. Everything is connected. Perhaps in our mythical business, the owners will not buy the new oven this year. Maybe they will take a lower wage themselves. Maybe they will raise the price of their burgers. Maybe they will do with one less cook. Maybe they will cook more hours themselves. Maybe they will have customers with more money who will absorb the price increase. Maybe with that new money they will hire more workers at the new wage.
Stop, all the possible outcomes are overwhelming!
Everything is connected. When you say "It just means they have to find their savings elsewhere" you have personalized a model business that jibes with how you want and expect it to work.
We like to imagine that business, because these models that appeal to us. And they do help us to think about what's involved.
But there are hundreds of thousands of business models out there, each one making hundreds of decisions every day. How do we know if our model business has anything to do with reality?
Here's another model: imagine one person in an office in a major city, running a very large Excel spreadsheet, and saying wow: if we automate the drinks machine we pay $25000 per store, but we save $11000 in labor each year, and using the present value calculation with low inflation we will turn a profit in first quarter 2018.
But even that is a cartoon of the economy, and a model that jibes blah blah blah.
Ugh, I'm an hour into this, let me just post and walk away.
The jobs are easy to do, don't add a ton of value, but wind up teaching people how to hold a job. How to apply, interview, how to get there on time and groomed, how to manage weekly pay, [COLOR="DarkOrange"]how to orally satisfy your bosses[/COLOR], etc. etc.
You're thinking of choirboys. :rolleyes:
The minimum wage only effects the starter job concept, the pimply faced teen learning responsibility at McWenBurg, is misleading. But that's what most people think about when the subject comes up. There is a whole hell of a lot of people working for minimum wage who are not in fast food. Both the fast food and other jobs are no longer a step to something bigger and better because that next step rarely opens up unless somebody dies or gets jailed.
I have no clue if this is accurate or completely from whole cloth, but there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence to make it sound reasonable.
Awww Tony, ya know I sisterylove you too :P
One thing to bear in mind though - is that according to those studies I linked to ; three quarters of those on minimum wage work for large companies, not small businesses. Small businesses are more likely to pay a fair wage than large corporations (small indy burger bar rather than McDs)
And its those big corporations that are paying its CEO's billions off the backs of those minimum wage employees...reducing them to nothing more than wage slaves.
How else do you keep the rabble in their place. As soon as they're making a living wage they have extra time to start thinking, and we all know what happens when the rabble start thinking. Boston Tea Party? Ft Sumter? Alamo?
North Dakota is not thinking minimum wage.
Yeah. But, but They'er only hiring only 3 people. Rest is self check out lanes. :angry:
Sounds like amazing pay, but you can't live on those wages in ND because there is almost no housing.
You'd need to tow a camper with some nice insulation for the winter months and find a place to park it and let you hook it up.
find a place to park it and let you hook it u
I imagine Walmart might be interested in such an arrangement
Boosting the federal minimum wage would be great news for the workers who’d receive a higher paycheck. Not so much for those who’d be out of a job. That anxiety sums up much of the debate around increasing the minimum wage.
Fueling angst on the right, the Congressional Budget Office reported last year that raising the federal minimum to $10.10 would cost about 500,000 jobs. Even liberal restaurant owners, like the ones NewsHour’s Paul Solman spoke to in Seattle last spring, worried that paying their workers more would doom their businesses, while nonprofit organizations feared having to cut their staff and services.
PBS ArticleHeh. The article is making the opposite claim, and the quoted paragraph was provided as counterpoint to the subject of the article.
I don't buy the bullet points pushed by pundits when "raising the minimum wage" is discussed.
One of the current hallmarks of today's economy is "high productivity"
I think that just means that employers are getting more product out of every employee.
But it also probably means they are paying the least amount of wages they can,
and their employees are working about as hard as they can.
If such is the case, employers are not as likely to lay off the workers they have now.
If they did, there were be fewer products and lower profits.
Consider a restaurant, if they laid off waiters/waitresses or cooks,
fewer meals would be served, and profits would go down
Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on.
Would you pay more for a meal at a place paying very high salaries to their wait staff, Lamp?
I don't buy the bullet points pushed by pundits when "raising the minimum wage" is discussed.
One of the current hallmarks of today's economy is "high productivity"
I think that just means that employers are getting more product out of every employee.
Not "employee", but "payroll dollar". There's no such thing as people to The Man, only numbers.
But it also probably means they are paying the least amount of wages they can,
and their employees are working about as hard as they can.
If such is the case, employers are not as likely to lay off the workers they have now.
If they did, there were be fewer products and lower profits.
Consider a restaurant, if they laid off waiters/waitresses or cooks,
fewer meals would be served, and profits would go down
In the short term, profits would go up. Fewer meals wouldn't be served, right off the bat, they'd just take longer to get to the table, people would have to wait to order, etc. When customers stopped coming for those reasons is when fewer meals would be served and profits would drop.
Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on.
I doubt it. American business isn't like Japanese business - they don't think long term. They see the short term improvement and think it will just continue. Six months later, they fold.
Would you pay more for a meal at a place paying very high salaries to their wait staff, Lamp?
We
already do.
Would you pay more for a meal at a place paying very high salaries to their wait staff, Lamp?
Your stance is that minimum wage is "very high salaries" ?
It's a hypothetical.
OK, whatever that means.
It means I'm asking you a leading question as part of a discussion.
It means I'm asking you a leading question as part of a discussion.
Would you pay more for a meal at a place paying very high salaries to their wait staff, Lamp?
OK, my answer is Yes. Go ahead and say whatever you wanted to say.
Sorry, it's an annoying line of conversation, online. I will shorten the transaction.
In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?
It's because you said, "Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on."
I think the "move on" part is unacceptable. That's what a lot of this thread is about. Can't just throw away one side of the equation.
Now you have paid $10 more for your ribeye at Texas Roadhouse and your server was well-compensated. So far so good. But you can't just "move on", because now there are $10 fewer dollars in your billfold. So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?
We already do.
From your link, what the hell is the difference between the duties of a Host vs a Hostess? Different pay and different pay range. :eyebrow:
...In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?<snip>
So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?
UT, I think we have each misunderstood one another.
...Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on.
In my post, by "they" I meant the "employer" would move on.
Obviously the employer has several options ... taking a smaller profit is one, raising meal prices is another, or reducing other costs (menu, portion size, ingredients, etc.) are within the purview of the employer.
The employee has only 2 options... continue at currently offered wage or look for work elsewhere.
Within your meaning, whatever I would do if I had $10 less in my billfold would depend on my level of income and assets.
At some level downwards, I would not be able to pay for the meal.
At some level upwards, $10 would not make any difference at all.
My view of the minimum wage is that a (relatively) small increase in wages can make a much more significant improvement in the life of employees than the same sized decrease in profit will make in the life of the employer.
But all that is for a different posting
From your link, what the hell is the difference between the duties of a Host vs a Hostess? Different pay and different pay range. :eyebrow:
It's gender discrimination ;)
Sorry, it's an annoying line of conversation, online. I will shorten the transaction.
In your budget, what would you now not pay for, in order to eat there?
It's because you said, "Instead, I think they will just pay the new minimum wages, and move on."
I think the "move on" part is unacceptable. That's what a lot of this thread is about. Can't just throw away one side of the equation.
Now you have paid $10 more for your ribeye at Texas Roadhouse and your server was well-compensated. So far so good. But you can't just "move on", because now there are $10 fewer dollars in your billfold. So, what will you now not pay for, now that you have paid more for a steak?
Now that the waiter, et al, have more money, they will go to Lamplighter's Emporium and buy $10 of his stuff. Yes, it's a shell game, but results have shown that
unemployment is lower when the minimum wage is higher.
The way it should work is that if you make more than $3ook (let's say), you don't get to charge more. You just make less, until you get to the point that you make less than $300k. Then you can raise prices. Should.
So why not raise it to $30/hour?
Because the goal is to help low income workers catch up a little, not give the entire 99% a raise.
Since "minimum wage" varies across the US, maybe the following pic's and table will add some perspective:
While the individual states set their own "state minimum wage" levels,
these levels must meed or exceed the "federal minimum wage" each year.
The 2015 "federal minimum wage" will bring some state levels up to $8.05, and others up to $8.50.
Other states (in green) will exceed this federal mark.
[ATTACH]50249[/ATTACH]
If I use the "I Love It" McDonalds wage scale in the US, their "team" average is ~ $8.16 / hr.
At 8 hr/day, 5 days/week/ 50 weeks/yr, this amounts to $16,320 per year.
[ATTACH]50250[/ATTACH]
Then I compare that yearly income with the Federal Poverty standards:
[ATTACH]50251[/ATTACH]
As I read all this, a household of 2 parents, each working full time for McDonalds,
falls below the poverty line as soon as they have their first child,
(and without zero-cost child-care it means they are working separate shifts)
and essentially each employee on the McDonalds "team" is Medicaid-eligible from the git-go.
Let's get to $15, and see what happens. Then we can give $30 a look.
It seems like this debate ought to diminish over the decades, yet somehow it never does. We've raised the minimum wage before. Employers never like it. But the country has not yet imploded from any of the previous increases. Viable businesses give their employees cost-of-living raises at least every few years.
If I use the "I Love It" McDonalds wage scale in the US, their "team" average is ~ $8.16 / hr.
At 8 hr/day, 5 days/week/ 50 weeks/yr, this amounts to $16,320 per year.
Then I compare that yearly income with the Federal Poverty standards:
[ATTACH]50251[/ATTACH]
...and essentially each employee on the McDonalds "team" is Medicaid-eligible from the git-go.
Not the single, your calculation of $16,320 just misses the $16,105 threshold... unless he takes some sick days. ;)
Oooops... you're right.
How about saying the bloak got no pay for the days he stayed home sick with the measles ? ;)
As I read all this, a household of 2 parents, each working full time for McDonalds, has their first child,
By fuckin' god if it ain't the American dream right there.
But you wouldn'ta said nuthin if you ain't seen Lolene when she was takin out the trash liners. Good gawd almighty them polyester shirts were pretty used up after a shift sweatin over the fryer, but she would put a knot in the bottom of that thing, and haul up that bag of cups and shit, and dang if she weren't better'n just a regular line worker no more. She could be... assistant manager.As I read all this, a household of 2 parents, each working full time for McDonalds,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]falls below the poverty line as soon as they have[/COLOR] their first child,...
By fuckin' god if it ain't the American dream right there.
But you wouldn'ta said nuthin if you ain't seen Lolene when she was takin out the trash liners. Good gawd almighty them polyester shirts were pretty used up after a shift sweatin over the fryer, but she would put a knot in the bottom of that thing, and haul up that bag of cups and shit, and dang if she weren't better'n just a regular line worker no more. She could be... assistant manager.
Snob.
Lolene grew up in in a blue/no collar world, lucky if most of the extended family had jobs. She barely finished High School, and has heard of colleges, that's where they build them football teams. She's honest, reliable, hard working, and seems to be pretty smart, but we'll never know because education was always a priority behind food, rent, insurance, taxes, medical bills, etc.
Making minimum wage will guarantee the same for her children and guarantee a steady supply of disposable humans for the 1% to use.
Have you guys personally known any McDonald's lifers? I've only ever encountered one person who tried to make that a career. Never encountered a two-earner-per-household version.
What they are is "starter jobs" for the great majority. You have them for a season or two and they teach you about having a job, holding a job, earning money. You don't stay there. You move on and someone else takes that spot and learns those lessons.
You need that sort of job in the society, to learn from, but doing the job itself is not really any great help to society because it's not really *doing* anything much at all. So the last thing you want is people making it a career, because it's a waste of people and a waste of a career.
But what about the poor people, I hear you say. I know the poor people. I have been with them, I have spoken with them, I will be with them tomorrow. All of them eat at McDonalds and a small number of them work there. It would be FAR better for the poor people if their burgers stayed the price they are, and they all had "starter jobs" that taught them skills. But thanks to you guys who think you're doing somebody a favor, and believe in your hearts that you're helping these people, with the deepest of your middle class compassion and the sorriest of your middle class guilt, that's now not going to happen in Seattle. If there are burgers in Seattle, the middle class is going to be flipping them, the middle class is going to be eating them, and the poor people are going to be fucked over once again.
You're aiming for the CEOs and with all your great intentions you just shot your friend in the face. But I know you'll be able to find statistics that show employment went up. Because the ghetto people aren't counted in those numbers.
What are the grocery stores like by you guys? When I was a lad in Maine, the employees, including cashiers, were 75% teenagers. A few adults managed things. Now it's 100% adults. Are grocery store shelf stocker and cashier a couple starter jobs or (not very good) careers?
I feel like they are unionized, but they can't be making much money, even with a union.
Have you guys personally known any McDonald's lifers? I've only ever encountered one person who tried to make that a career. Never encountered a two-earner-per-household version.
I have. Both were "managers", and they had 2 kids. They lived in a blue collar area, without obvious niceties, but I have no idea of their finances.
What they are is "starter jobs" for the great majority. You have them for a season or two and they teach you about having a job, holding a job, earning money. You don't stay there. You move on and someone else takes that spot and learns those lessons.
You need that sort of job in the society, to learn from, but doing the job itself is not really any great help to society because it's not really *doing* anything much at all. So the last thing you want is people making it a career, because it's a waste of people and a waste of a career.
Tony, half of the world has a lower than average IQ. There are many people who are not equipped mentally, physically, or emotionally to do much more than cook burgers or greet people at Walmart. Should they be penalized for inadequacies for which they are not responsible?
But what about the poor people, I hear you say. I know the poor people. I have been with them, I have spoken with them, I will be with them tomorrow. All of them eat at McDonalds and a small number of them work there. It would be FAR better for the poor people if their burgers stayed the price they are, and they all had "starter jobs" that taught them skills. But thanks to you guys who think you're doing somebody a favor, and believe in your hearts that you're helping these people, with the deepest of your middle class compassion and the sorriest of your middle class guilt, that's now not going to happen in Seattle. If there are burgers in Seattle, the middle class is going to be flipping them, the middle class is going to be eating them, and the poor people are going to be fucked over once again.
You're aiming for the CEOs and with all your great intentions you just shot your friend in the face. But I know you'll be able to find statistics that show employment went up. Because the ghetto people aren't counted in those numbers.
It's a shame that the CEO won't do the right thing, and pay the workers that are the reason he makes $9.5 million a living wage AND not raise the price for the "ghetto people". But that would mean he'd only make several million dollars a year, and who can live on that?:rolleyes:
What is the incentive for a "ghetto person" to take a job for $8/hour, with no benefits, etc.? Now, if that job pays $15/hour, and includes benefits, ghetto person might just to the plunge.
It's a shame that the CEO won't do the right thing, and pay the workers that are the reason he makes $9.5 million a living wage AND not raise the price for the "ghetto people". But that would mean he'd only make several million dollars a year, and who can live on that?:rolleyes:
If the CEO did his job entirely pro-bono and personally wrote a check to every McDonald's employee at the end of the year, dividing his expected salary evenly to each and every one of them, that check would be for five dollars.
What is the incentive for a "ghetto person" to take a job for $8/hour, with no benefits, etc.? Now, if that job pays $15/hour, and includes benefits, ghetto person might just to the plunge.
Sorry, that job is no longer available to the ghetto person. At $15/hour, it's now viciously targeted by the lower middle class.
I have. Both were "managers", and they had 2 kids. They lived in a blue collar area, without obvious niceties, but I have no idea of their finances.
Easy to get an idea if you really want to know.
FWIW, they are making more than I am in my white collar world.
Imagine that?!?!?
"Starter Jobs" went the way of sword fighting and knickers. There are less jobs than people who want them, so can you reserve slave wage jobs under the guise of preparing teens for the world? What about the others? Well fuck them, they can rob banks or starve, because they can barely survive on a minimum wage job unless someone else is paying the rent and shit.
Hey, that's it, they could band together and share... but that's communism, we can't have that. Let's see, we can't call them a family, they'll want tax breaks and shit. Hmm, I have it, we'll call them a GANG.
People at or below the federal minimum are:
Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24;
24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (77%) white; nearly half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total).
Sooooooooo ... 36% are full-time workers
statistically half or 49.6% are OVER 24.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and from the ever unbiased
Politifact
Rob Portman says 'about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage'Looking at the
manufacturing sector.
The Fight For $15 protest movement has gained support recently, as the Democratic Party added a national $15 minimum wage to its platform and presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation that would do this by 2020. An increase of this magnitude will have a much greater reach than the minimum wages we currently see in the U.S., which raises the important question of how a $15 minimum wage would affect manufacturing. The potential for lost jobs is particularly acute given that many manufacturers face global competition. If wages become too high in one place, it's easier for a manufacturer than for, say, a restaurant, to relocate operations. After all, the huge decline in manufacturing employment in previous decades is in part a warning about the unsustainability of above-market wages in a globally competitive environment.
There is something in the air...
Do you smell it too? It smells so fresh
It smells the perfect time you wanted it in
It smells like I don't need to worry if it washed it's hands
Come here big boy, you know where I want you
Oh yea, you beautiful wave of destruction
[YOUTUBEWIDE]iQ_fSP3LGw8[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Was it good for you? Well I'd light up a smoke but nobody can afford too....
The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They've cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.
Interesting; two studies came out with opposing results; one concentrated on restaurants, including fast food chains, and the other covered all sectors, but excluded multi-location businesses, like fast-food chains. One had excellent access to lots of data, but only in Washington State, while the other used more general data, but made comparisons across the country.
Neither study included multi-location businesses across all sectors, which I would expect to be a fairly significant block. On the one hand, it's a valid point if raising the minimum wage hurts mom & pop shops more than chains, but on the other hand, chains have been knocking out the mom & pop shops already, under historically low minimum wages. A study that purports to talk about the average impact to workers while omitting workers who work for businesses with widespread locations seems suspect. As does one that only includes restaurants, though that seems to be the standard, if these articles are correct.
Well proven repeatedly in economics and history - if machines replace humans, then more human jobs are created, that economy is healthier, people's living standards increase, wealth of the common man increases, and it is all contrary to classic sound byte reasoning.
We also know that an economy is healthier and a Gini coefficient decreases when the minimum wage moves up to an affordable income level. Also known as a living wage.
A minimum wage that is too high may also have adverse affects. But anyone citing 'use of more machines' to lower peoples incomes and job opportunities is using wild speculation and junk science reasoning. History has repeatedly demonstrated otherwise.
Update, new study on this came by.
Seattle Times: A tale of two Seattle job markets for low-wage workers in new minimum-wage study
More-experienced workers in Seattle’s low-wage labor market saw their paychecks rise with the city’s minimum-wage increases and stayed in jobs longer, while less-experienced workers, on average, saw little or no change.
That’s the latest finding from a team of University of Washington researchers, whose first study on Seattle’s minimum wage increases in 2017 concluded paychecks for low-wage workers on average were shrinking slightly because they were working fewer hours even as the pay floor rose from $11 to $13 an hour in 2016. That finding provided ammunition to opponents of the wage increases.
Researchers followed more than 14,000 people employed in Seattle at a wage of $11 an hour or less at the beginning of 2015, before the wage increases. Looking at the same group about 18 months later, the researchers found that workers who started out working more hours — defined in the study as more-experienced workers — ended up earning on average $251 more per quarter. The less-experienced half of the group, which logged less than a third as many hours on the job each week at the beginning of the study period, averaged little or no change in income. That includes earnings anywhere in Washington, not just in Seattle.
So far, the bottom line sounds like this. At first, employers reacted to the increase by giving their employees fewer hours. Over time, employers found that if they were offering higher wages, they could now expect more out of their employees. The "good" employees still got fewer hours (if you the math), but they were paid more via the law, and so did better per quarter. The lower half continued to get even fewer hours, and as a result saw no improvement in take-home pay. And then there are the people not getting hired at all:
For low-wage workers with less experience — a high-school student looking for a summer job, say — the wage increases have led to fewer job opportunities, the researchers found.
All this is happening during an economic boom. If it was during a bust the picture would be much more bleak. But it's not the broader unemployment I thought it might be - in a record low time for unemployment in general. It's just stagnant income and fewer opportunities to get started.
Can't vote yourself prosperity.
The less-experienced half of the group, which logged less than a third as many hours on the job each week at the beginning of the study period, averaged little or no change in income...
The "good" employees still got fewer hours (if you the math), but they were paid more via the law, and so did better per quarter.
So, I interpret these two things a little differently. First, someone working 10-15 hours a week ("less than a third" of the close-to-full-time workers) is not someone who is supporting a family. In my recent experience (via my stepdaughter's ongoing part-time efforts,) employers prefer the magic number of 30-34 hours per week--few enough that they don't have to provide health benefits, but just barely, because coordinating the schedules and paychecks of three people at 10 hours each instead of one at 30 is just more headache for the manager and requires more time wasted on training, etc. I posit that anyone working just 10 hours a week
wants to be working that little, i.e. the job is intentionally supplemental. So relatively speaking, I'm the least concerned about their wages stagnating compared to others'.
Second, you could look at it as the good employees "got" fewer hours, but you could also say they "had to work less" while taking home a bigger paycheck. They may be using that time to go to school to get a better job--the effects of which won't be seen for several more years--or voluntarily spending more time with their kids because now they can afford to, or (not great, but still) able to apply the extra hours toward a second part-time job since their first employer won't give them the full 40 hours with benefits. Ideally everyone wants to work 40 hours, but if your employer is keeping you at a max of 35.5 anyway, then it seems better to work less for more money.
For low-wage workers with less experience — a high-school student looking for a summer job, say — the wage increases have led to fewer job opportunities, the researchers found.
This, I'll grant you, isn't good. But it is a continuation of a trend that has been going on for a long time now. To me, it goes hand-in-hand with the fact that older workers in manufacturing are also having a hard time finding jobs--we have to figure out what the shit jobs of the New Economy are going to be, for all ages, and that takes some time. Possibly in a few more decades it will be a given that all teens work for, say, Instacart, but that will require them and/or their parents to familiarize them with the life skill of shopping on their own, and consider it as a logical option instead of mentally defaulting to, say, food service, which is where all the teens of my generation worked but isn't a viable option for most teens now.
The 35 hour workers are also getting fewer hours now.
35 hours x $15 x 4 weeks x 3 months = $6300/qtr (gross)
35 hours x $11 x 4 weeks x 3 months = $4620/qtr
They should be making $1632 more per qtr -- but they are only making $251 more per qtr.
But wait, we all made a little more money more during this time. There was inflation. Does the study adjust for inflation? The answer seems to be no; I can't find any evidence that all this is in real dollars. $4,620 in June 2014 is equivalent in purchasing power to $4,902 in October 2018. That's $282 difference.
So the math says the top half people are now working 2 fewer hours per week, and netting a little
less money out of their job due to inflation.
But did the hamburgers get more expensive?
But did the hamburgers get more expensive?
In the early days of MacDonalds, one could get a hamburger and coke for less than $1. Today, that is about $8. Replacing humans with more machines has significantly reduced the cost of hamburgers.
I hope that was sarcasm.
I have only seen prices increase for 50 yrs.
Where are the burgers getting cheaper?
I might move for cheap hamburgers.
With the $1 -> $8 comment, I suspect he was being sarcastic about robots decreasing prices.
But a cheeseburger and a drink are each on the dollar menu, so you can get both for $2. That's more than the less than $1 from the early days of McDonalds, but there's probably some point in the intervening years where a cheeseburger and coke cost more than $2.
[ATTACH]65798[/ATTACH]
1948
But the best thing about this menu has to be the prices. The most expensive item was the “Triple-Thick Shake,” which cost a whopping 20 cents. You could get a shake in Chocolate, Vanilla, or Strawberry (hence the “Triple” part of the name). If you wanted the milk without the shake, you could order a “Refreshing Cold Milk” for only 12 cents.
1960
In 1960 where I lived, it was also possible to get a large(r) soft drink for 15 cents in addition to the smaller one for 10 cents. Other than that, these prices are just as I remember them. The "All-American" meal was a burger, fries, and a shake for 45 cents (plus tax).
1963
35 cents for McDonalds hamburger, fries, and Coke in 1963.
1968
The Big Mac was added to the menu in 1968. You could buy it for about 49 cents.
[ATTACH]65799[/ATTACH]
1975
The Egg McMuffin was added to the national menu in 1975. It sold for about 63 cents.
[ATTACH]65801[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]65800[/ATTACH]
But did the hamburgers get more expensive?
I don't mean since 1940, I mean since the $15 minimum wage went into effect.
I hope that was sarcasm.
Obviously not sarcasm. The coke I once bought for a dime now cost over a dollar. That dime then is now called 90 cents. So the price of coke has increased (but not its cost).
That 63 cent Egg McMuffin is now called $3.10. So automation explains why Egg McMuffin prices have decreased.
When I was working for minimum wage in the early 1960s, that is about $13/hr today.
But a cheeseburger and a drink are each on the dollar menu, so you can get both for $2.
That is not the cheeseburger that was served back then. We are discussing retail prices - not the price of discounted loss leaders.
That 63 cent Egg McMuffin is now called $3.10. So automation explains why Egg McMuffin prices have decreased.
It's also worth noting, however, that automation must occur in bulk offsite in order to be cost-effective, which has only been made possible by the advent of chemical preservatives. If those chemical preservatives were eliminated--either through official safety regulations or general customer refusal--much of the automation trend would grind to a halt, as it were.
That is not the cheeseburger that was served back then. We are discussing retail prices - not the price of discounted loss leaders.
What if I used a coup'n?
What if I used a coup'n?
Use shillings. That is monopoly money. So it does not cost anything.
That's right. If you are going to use a burger as an economic index, you have to use the Big Mac.
For example, using figures in July 2008:[5]
the price of a Big Mac was $3.57 in the United States (varies by store)
the price of a Big Mac was £2.29 in the United Kingdom (varies by region)
the implied purchasing power parity was $1.56 to £1, that is $3.57/£2.29 = 1.56
this compares with an actual exchange rate of $2.00 to £1 at the time
(2.00-1.56)/1.56 = 28%
the pound was thus overvalued against the dollar by 28%
Nice.
In the paper, Amanda Y. Agan of Rutgers University and Michael D. Makowsky of Clemson University analyzed the effect of 200 state and federal minimum wage increases on 6 million people released from prison between 2000 and 2014. What they found was striking: Raising the minimum wage by $0.50 reduced the chance that a person would end up incarcerated within a year by 2.8 percent.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/10/higher-minimum-wage-could-lower-recidivism/571948/ Nice.
That clearly says nothing about inflation. All this was discussed previously:
Would someone give me the short version of this basic economics question?If they had taken that $20 bill from 1998 and invested it instead of buying all that junk food, they might have been able to fill their cart now.
They'd be real skinny too. :rolleyes:
They'd be real skinny too.
But notice how hard the dependent will fight over the estate. A tribute to the healthier and deceased.
Right, why don't the poors just invest their money instead of buying groceries? They could eat take-out, so what's the problem?
When told that her French subjects had no bread, Marie-Antoinette had the solution. It still applies. “Let them eat cake.”
There may be some cake in there. That 1998 grocery cart looked liked it was full of junk food, hence my previous comment.
That 1998 grocery cart looked liked it was full of junk food, ...
Good. There must be chocolate. Essential for improved (short term) brain activity. Which proves man cannot live on cake alone.
The infographic suggests that the cost of inflation has a terrible bearing on a minimum wage earner's ability to buy things over time. It is wrong.
If you bought $20 of goods in 1998, they would cost $28.92 in 2015
During that same time, minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25*
$5.15 in 1998 has the same buying power as $7.45 in 2015. So, during that period the wage is slightly underperforming inflation.
An accurate infographic would show the wage earner buying the same cart, but with 2-3 fewer items.
*minimum wage now differs by locality, as states and cities have the ability to set their own minimum wage, always setting it higher and typically much higher.
But more interestingly, in 1998 4.4 million workers were at minimum wage; in 2015, it's 2.6 million. In 1998, 6.2% of all hourly-paid workers got minimum wage. In 2015, only 3.3% do. And by 2017, that number is 2.3%. It looks like the market is giving us a higher labor rate than the federal minimum. FWIW Wendy's pays like $12 out here.
I don't know if there's anything to substantiate whether things track this way, but I guess I'd always assumed that minimum wage is a baseline wage that employers incentivize hiring based on how high "above" minimum they are. I guess I'm remembering that from early jobs I had a long time ago, where twice as much as minimum wage seemed like an awesome gig-- DOUBLE the regular amount!
But more interestingly, in 1998 4.4 million workers were at minimum wage; in 2015, it's 2.6 million. In 1998, 6.2% of all hourly-paid workers got minimum wage. In 2015, only 3.3% do. And by 2017, that number is 2.3%. It looks like the market is giving us a higher labor rate than the federal minimum. FWIW Wendy's pays like $12 out here.
Of course that makes sense, since the minimum wage wasn't raised during that whole time. If the minimum wage were tied to inflation (which I think it should be, to save us rehashing this stupid political debate every couple of decades), $7.25 in 1998 would be $10.83 per hour now. What percentage of hourly workers would be at minimum wage by that calculation?
My stepdaughter was most recently making $8.40 as a restaurant hostess. The real question is: is the $12-per-hour Wendy's worker in your area able to afford housing in your area? My stepdaughter couldn't even afford to split the ghetto-est of ghetto apartments with roommates, in this area.
$7.25 in 1998 would be $10.83 per hour now
It was $5.15 in 1998
The real question is: is the $12-per-hour Wendy's worker in your area able to afford housing in your area?
Not noticing any tent cities so I'ma say yes. Section 8 around here is like $900/month.
It was $5.15 in 1998
Ah, a perfect example of localities doing their own thing, like you said above. For me, I know it went from $5.15 to $5.25 in Austin around the summer/fall of 1996 because I was working at Domino's Pizza then and was excited to personally benefit from the change. By 1998, I was getting more elsewhere and don't remember it as clearly.
Section 8 around here is like $900/month.
GOD DAMN!!
$900 a month?!
I said GOD
DAMN!!!:bolt:
I'm not sure I could live on twelve dollars an hour.
Rent, food, car, car insurance, car gas, car licensing, car maintenance, electricity, water, gas, clothes, ohshitthetransmissionconkedout$1000+, and the tires are bald.
And I haven't even fed my two children yet. Or put clothes on them. Or paid the sitter. Or school costs. Dammitthelittleurchinbrokehisdamnleg$5000.
Nope. I, myself, could not live on $12/hour.
It costs more than that just to drive GC1 at interstate speeds.
And you didn't even mention the big ones: Fed and state income Tax, SS, health insurance.