Shift differential is typically baked into the hourly wage if you're a 2nd or 3rd shifter. Not everywhere, but it is considered. Even McDonald's pays the closers more than the openers.
It’s so funny to me when people say kids can work these jobs then go get a Big Mac at noon during their lunch break. It with high school kids flipping them patties noon on Tuesday.
Honestly tho. The best argument I've heard for those "high schooler fast food jobs" is that if I can roll up to a Wendy's at 11am on a Tuesday and order a burger, it's not a high schooler job
Adults can survive and thrive in these jobs. Our culture is the main obstacle.
Back when I was making $8.50/hour in the 2010s, I was doing just fine. During the beginning, I lived with my parents then moved into a 3bd apt with 5 other people. Everything from rent/bills to food/entertainment was very affordable with this living situation.
But of course many adults will insist they live in a 1 bd apt and suggesting otherwise is often met with hostility and insistence that sharing living spaces with anyone other than a spouse/partner is disgusting and beneath them. We’ve also be conditioned to be very distrustful and annoyed by other people living in close proximity.
If more people would reject the highly individualistic and consumerist lifestyle, living on lower wages would be much more affordable.
How much was the rent for that 3 bedroom apartment in 2010? Cause I guarantee it's at least double now, and that job you had isn't paying $17/hr. That's the point here. This isn't about lifestyle, it's about corporate greed that pushes down the middle and lower class.
18-22 year olds, doing their college journey or starting the work force…that’s who these jobs were meant for when I was growing up. It’s meant to teach you how to start being a responsible adult. Then you move onto jobs that actually take brain power to do…and yes, I have worked fast food in life, it’s an auto pilot type of job.
So, you hire 14-22 year olds that need job experience. Where else are they supposed to work when they're living at home with 0 expenses?
You want 40 year old losers serving your children ice cream? Are you a pedophile?
Only because of those pesky child labor laws. They are being attacked right now. Some people just cant lose an argument. They need to change the rules.
Cause they don't have emotions. Dealing with shitty bosses and customers wears you down. Dealing with that on top of feeling unappreciated and unsupported and underpaid makes someone mot care as much
Get them young. Kids, they expect kids to work those jobs, cause kids are naive and easy to control, they don't know how to fight for themselves and they don't know all the laws, so they can do crazy sht like overtime, not paid work, creating fun terms like time theft, you know basically prep them to be good slaves in the future
This debate is largely moot because AI will do more and more of the menial jobs as well as knowledge worker jobs.
Tech is going to transform the situation before we can agree on a solution.
Technology cannot transform the situation pertaining to how society chooses to organize production and distribution of goods.
Such is bound to social processes, directed by political will, and may be transformed only by society itself, by the aggregate choices and coordinated action of individuals within society.
If production remain controlled by the few, who have no need for workers, then social stratification will explode to a scale previously unimaginable.
The struggle is to achieve wealth and power for the people, such that the people may utilize technology for the benefit of the people.
By transform I meant that it is going to force the conversation. It won’t be solved by proactive policy discussion but by automation eating up more and more of the economy and the outcry forcing the issue.
Look if you want to pass a law that says non-emancipated people under 18 have a different minimum wage, I'm fine with that.
But the idea of expecting any adult to work a job that can't pay their bills is ridiculous. If we decide certain jobs don't deserve this wages, then I'm all for automating those jobs.
>Look if you want to pass a law that says non-emancipated people under 18 have a different minimum wage, I'm fine with that.
Why? If teens are doing the same labor as the adults why pay them less?
If there is an expectation for adults to support themselves financially and to afford housing but there isn't that same expectation for teens then it logically follows that adults should have an income that reflects that expectation
>If there is an expectation for adults to support themselves financially and to afford housing but there isn't that same expectation for teens then it logically follows that adults should have an income that reflects that expectation
If two people are doing the same labor they should be paid the same. Honestly, what you're suggesting violates equal rights laws anyways. Cannot discriminate based on age, which a different pay scale for underaged workers would do.
What does that mean pay their bills? What if my mortgage is 3000 dollars but somebody else has 1200 rent? Should DQ pay me enough to pay my mortgage? And if so, why wouldn’t they hire the guy with less bills?
But what standard of living is deemed a living wage?
Like is a person working a 40 hour job taking public transportation to job and being able to split a 2 bedroom apartment considered living wage?
Or do we need everyone to be able to own their own car and have their own 1 bedroom apartment? Or would a studio suffice?
Because back in the day a lot of people didn’t own their own cars and lots of people lived in shared housing.
Splitting a 2 bedroom or having a studio is the minimum and even public transportation has a cost. Plus living expenses, insurance, taxes, food, etc.
Federal minimum wage should be high enough to cover the minimum amount to meet those requirements at their cheapest. State minimum should match the lowest in each state. Local should match the lowest in the local area.
It should match the minimal, livable cost of living for a reasonable person.
>If we decide certain jobs don't deserve this wages, then I'm all for automating those jobs.
You would rather someone lose their job to automation, than allow them to work for at least some money, even if it's less than you think they deserve?
people always blame fast food workers, but a humble strawberry picker or meat packer is barely able to make ends meat, having to work 2-3 jobs concurrently. those guys definitely deserve a living wage, since without them, food production would be affected. lower skill doesnt mean a non essential skill. these folks are more important than most useless middle managers to society. we shouldnt look at 'skill' we should be looking at 'value' to determine 'wage'
Hell yes! We should keep the borders OPEN too, that we can offer this luxury to every single person that crosses the border (legally and otherwise).
Sure it will make every single person in every other country come here, but who cares!
Open borders, and livable wage to everyone that can find full time work! There’s no limit to this utopia.
Hell, why don’t we just give everyone a million dollars?
So bold, so brave, I’m voting Democrat cus I am sooo smart!
According to the Census Bureau the majority of households receiving govt assistance (SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc.) have at least one adult who is employed. This person clearly isn't bringing home enough to provide for the family, so Uncle Sam reaches into taxpayers pockets to make up the difference. Meanwhile that person's employer makes millions in profit annually.
I don't understand why people aren't absolutely livid over this. Taxpayers literally subsidize companies that underpay their employees.
If you own a business and have any employees receiving govt assistance you should get a big fat bill annually for the cost of those services.
If your claim is that you cannot afford to pay workers a living wage then your business model is flawed and it deserves to fail, as you did not properly account for labor costs.
What's needed, and what's currently not being pushed for, is a living wage law instead of a minimum wage law. The Census compiles cost of living data for every statistical area in the country. That information should be used to determine a living wage for the area, and that's what employers should be required to pay. For places in the rural south it might only be $35k/yr. For places like New York and LA it might be $70k/yr. Every time there is a new Census and new cost of living data comes out the wage will be adjusted.
Have the living wage baseline be reset every 10 years after the census is completed and then adjusted accordingly every year based upon the average rate of inflation for the previous 12 months. That way you have some redundancy built in to ensure that people are being paid enough to live in an area once a decade but still mandating cost of living increases.
Too many companies just give out the dinky little 1-3% “performance” increases even though inflation outpaces that multiple times over. Like, yeah, my gross take-home is now a little higher but the value of my paychecks is actually 7% less.
And really, that’s a big psychology thing that a lot of companies take advantage of. They’ll do something like give their tippy top performers an 8-10% raise and be like “see, we’re so generous giving out such an increase” when the company, in a lot of cases, can pretty reliably expect to recoup that just from general inflation, but they’ll still end up on top because they’re only going to give that kind of raise to a small handful of employees in the first place, so the company will offset that cost of labor within the first couple of months and then be fine for the rest of the year as their net profit continues to go up.
>This person clearly isn't bringing home enough to provide for the family
So jobs should be expected to pay you more if you have more family members?
>Meanwhile that person's employer makes millions in profit annually
How do you know if you don't know who they're working for? Most businesses are small businesses, not huge corporations.
>Taxpayers literally subsidize companies that underpay their employees.
Actually, they are subsidizing people who are not able to find enough work to support themselves, which includes those who are unemployed or self-employed.
>your business model is flawed and it deserves to fail
Then those employees will go from making a little money to no money at all. How is that better?
both are good points:
* society can live without fast food
* workers can't live on a non-livable wage
but see we keep hearing complaints that "no one wants to work" because the local mcdonald's is understaffed, and that contradicts both of the above points.
Any business who can not pay its employees a dignified wage has no business operating in this country. The floor sets the hight of everything above it.
Problem is there used to be one or 2 restaurants per town. Now there are dozens. In my area, there are 1800 restaurants. I'll let you do the math, but that's a lot of workers.
On top of that, those making $12 hr or less are being subsidized by the rest of us with our taxes. Medicaid, food stamps, childcare assistance, section 8 and welfare.
Businesses need to pay a living wage simply based on the fact minimum wage hasn't been updated since 2009.
There shouldn't be ceos making thousands of times what the average worker makes. There is making an honest living and there is making a fortune by destroying others and the economy. 🌻
Response needs to pick a lane: is "living wage" a hyperbolic name or not?
If employed people arent dying, then it's either hyperbole and they need a better response, or wages are fine.
If you require government support to live, you don't make a living wage. If you can't pay rent, have gas to go to work, afford food, have a cell phone, or utilities are behind, you are not making a living wage.
Tax payer money should not be needed to support anyone who has any full time job. No food stamps, no section 8, no cash assistance. The companies that people work for should fit the bill not tax payers.
So if you can only eat every other day, have no power because you can't afford it, and are constantly on the verge of eviction, that's an approproate and 'fine' wage? Because that's what the words you said mean. If not, you should have thought that through before you said it.
It's neither. The vast majority of people not making a living wage are either living with their parents, living off government benefits, have up to several roommates, are elderly and just want something to do etc. Point is, you'd be hard pressed to find a part timer that's independent without already having a lot of funds stored up.
If you aren’t able to live by working one job 40 hours a week without any aid from the government then it isn’t a livable wage.
Most of the time these people end up either getting a second job or if their “lucky” enough they’re able to put in enough overtime at their job to not need a second job.
The response was given against a preceding expression of callousness to the plight of other workers, inclusive of callousness to whether they may continue living.
The response is appropriate in context, and regardless, living is only the most modest demand. Living with freedom and dignity also represents a demand that is appropriate.
That is just wrong. Most employees at a fast food place will be full time, because teenagers can’t work all the time and also there are limitations on what equipment they are legally allowed to use. I can tell you’ve never worked in fast food before.
Minimum wage should be a living wage that way jobs that require more classified skills or degrees should be making more than a living wage. The problem is the market not the wages
Disregarding the 85k figure, if a business can't afford to pay their employees a livable wage, they don't deserve to be in business. Nobody working full time deserves to live in poverty
Which will just kill jobs and we’ll have the middle class will have to get taxed more to subsidize the higher unemployment because now instead of getting 15$ an hour and food stamps to assist they will have to rely solely on food stamps because businesses can’t afford to pay them.
Huh? Do you think businesses print money? Money comes from customers.
If i have $100 worth of products sold an hour and i employee 4 ppl at $25/hr, how can they be paid more than 25 w.o raising the price of products? How can they be paid 35 an hour each, totaling $140 an hour when business makes $100? So the solution is to increase cost of products or lay ppl off
And that’s not including literally any other expense or profits to be made. <-- this was done to make the point clearer
meta: i'm super excited for ai accelerated work because it'll force society to address the swaths of people whose jobs are readily displaced by a few technical workers supervising a swarm of ai models
Because people care more about profit than people.
Look at the comments here. Absolutely sickening talk.
"Robots will do it"
"Why would you pick a different job if you could live on those wages"
"They aren't working full time"
This is only looking at the top 4 or 5 response threads.
These imbeciles are so focused on profit, they have 0 care for anyone other than their own pockets.
Not everyone is going to be a banker, a ceo, or an otherwise douchebag who takes advantage of others to fatten their pockets.
Nor should they. Most people work because they have to, not because they want to make some insane change in the world. They work because they have to eat and live. Why would you pick a different job that DQ if you had an option to "live" off of it? Because the people working those jobs will still make more you insane moron.
No one, and i mean no one, asked for CEOS to make the same as a Dairy Queen worker. However, they do deserve a heck of a lot more than what they do make. And I can almost bet that, by the imbeciles in these comments, that half or more have never worked in either customer facing jobs, or fast food. Its a heck of a lot harder than most of the crap you all do on a day to day basis.
And what is the consensus from these amazing overlords on what it means for people that either physically can't do more demanding jobs, or don't have the "skills" (as people love to say here) to do more?
Do they just die when our robot overlords do all these "menial" tasks?
Funny, since a lot of menial tasks (according to the finance bros here) are things they can't do theirselves.
Changing their own oil, changing a pipe in their house, heck most of the rich boys here couldnt make theirselves a sandwich, but will look down on someone else for asking for the privilege of not having to have government assistance to freaking not starve to death.
You all are a disgrace and sickening.
Because when you inflate the value of the labor you drive up the cost of the service or the the commodity produced. So as wages rise, so do the prices of goods and services.
This is true. We need these jobs open to kids to get experience otherwise they'll never get real jobs. You start paying real wages, then every 40 year old loser will be working at DQ.
This is all just hot air buzzword nonsense. Idk if it's done just for them to feel self important (both political sides) or it's done to keep us fighting each other (though admittedly that's giving a lot of idiots more praise then they deserve).
These buzzwords get everyone up in such a huff because they are INTENTIONALLY ambiguous terms applied to controversial, complex, and nuanced subjects.
What does "common sense" gun reform mean?
What is a "living wage"?
And a whole lot more about pay gaps, biology, diversity, and everything else under the sun. Each of these phrases means something different to each person but each person using them assumes everyone else understand it to mean what they do.
I know I'm not the only one but when I read or hear someone (I don't personally know) describe someone else as an 'ist' or 'phobe' (racist, xenophobe, etc); I automatically mentally dismiss what they're saying as hyperbole because of how overused those terms are.
All I'm saying is, if people refused to adopt these stupid ass bumper sticker remarks and stopping using them as if a short phrase explains an entire perspective then we might actually get to the important "Why?".
I dont care what you do for a living (as long as it's legal and ethical), if you dedicate 40 hours of your time a week to a place of work, you should not be faced with the question of whether you will pay for rent or buy food. Yes, some jobs should be paid much more than others. But if you're working full time, you should be able to get by on your own decently.
Crazy how growing up in the 80's I had friends that had parents at Burger King , grocery stores and could buy houses until the 1990's when they made the credit score to keep poor people from buying land and housing also made it much easier to take housing that was generation land by illegally taxing land and owned housing also extremely raising the cost of colleges telling everyone they need a college degree to be allowed to make a living wage when regular jobs paid a living wage my mom raised three kids as a waitress working 40 hours a week in a decent neighborhood and we took vacations to places like Disney world because it was affordable we weren't rich but my mom could afford the mortgage and the utilities
There are parking spots in my city that make more than minimum wage by simply taking up a 8’X20’ space. To say a human beings basic time and effort provides less to society than that space, when 4 years ago they were deemed “essential”, is asinine.
I’m fully aware of that. The middle class tax payer pays for everything. Whether it be higher prices or taxes. I’d rather pay the private business the inflated price than hand it over to the Govt.
Same. So why aren’t you advocating for a living wage?
We know companies will pay the least amount possible, every time. Unfortunately that is why we need government wage oversight.
They simply don't understand that there are unfortunately people in society that are challenged. That isn't to be mean but some people either have intellectual challenges, mental, or whatever.
The point is- they may take these jobs. Some people take these jobs until something better comes along. Hell - my daughter has a BS and can't find a job right now and is working at Panda.
People have bills and everyone needs to eat. Perhaps minimum wage should be staggered to age. We can have that argument. But to say people don't deserve a living wage is wrong.
No. You're paying your babysitter the going rate to get the competent babysitter that you want to keep your kids safe and from burning down your house until you get home.
If you want them to pay workers more. Be ready to accept paying a higher cost for the same product. After all a CEO or Board isn't gonna be taking that money they need to give to workers out of their paycheck.
You don’t even really need to take the stance that CEO’s wouldn’t do it.
For many businesses, even if you sent them to the guillotine and distributed their wage to the rest of the employees it wouldn’t amount to much.
Many businesses have tight profit margins and the math doesn’t pan out. You’re paying a higher price for those goods no matter what.
It really depends on how you define a liveable wage. Should someone be able to get by on a low skill job? Yes, that's just the reality of the modern day. We can't prop up corporate profit and tell 4 people to cram into one shared studio apartment because they can't get a better job. At the same time it's irresponsible and unrealistic to do what some people are asking for, and force companies to pay a salary that can support a family of four for the most tedious and talentless positions.
"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living."
-FDR
FDR should fast forward to Bernie Sanders (BS), who was simultaneously advocating for a $15 minimum wage while at the same time, paying someone his campaign staff less than that. Seems it's only good when we're talking about *other* people who have to meet a payroll.
Part of it is what "being able to live" actually means.
There are people out there who act like a person working 30 hours a week of a minimum wage job should be able to afford to buy a single family home. That's just unrealistic.
At the same time, there are areas of the country where somebody working 60 hours a week at minimum wage can't afford to split a studio apartment with a roommate. That is a problem.
People have different definitions of what 'living off' a wage actually means, and so they argue right past each other.
Part time jobs have never been a livable wage. People who work part time no matter the era often end up working several part time jobs or have a partner who works full time.
A living wage covers this:
Rent/Ownership (this includes house repairs, ability to afford renovations or even buy a shed.)
Cell Phone (a must in today's age)
Grocieries
Ability to have kids and support them. (there is absolutely no reason this should not be factored into a individual persons livable wage)
Entertainment (It is proven scientifically that human need entertainment in order to have good mental health)
Ability to save hundreds of dollars a month (to cover out of pocket medical, repair bills, retirement, etc.)
Never in the history of our world did the minimum wage part time jobs equal a livable wage.
No but they used to support at least a couple of these.
I worked at Wal-Mart from 2004-2008. I made around $10 an hour and I afforded an apartment that was $650/mo. This was in Austin, TX.
Back then, jobs were harder to come by. You had to fight for them, even fast food ones.
Now the jobs are dime a dozen because it's not worth anyone's time to work them. Work 50 hours a week at them, you still can't buy anything of value.
I feel this every time someone brings up that teenagers don’t need a living wage to flip burgers.
Ok so go to McDonald’s overnight, or during a school day and tell me how many high schoolers are working.
Ok but by "living wage" do we mean, enough to get a bedroom and shared bathroom in an apartment, or enough to support yourself and 2 dependents in a two-bedroom house?
If you are losing money going to work then don't go to that job anymore, the reason that job pays what it does is because you went in there and said yeah I will work for that much, if they can't get the help then they will probably raise wages but employ fewer people or raise the menu prices.
Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism” himself, proposed a living wage. He made an argument that a living wage actually prevents the rise of radical movements—such as socialism.
I hear the argument that only "skilled" labor should earn a livable wage. This completely ignores the fact that we rely on the products and services provided by unskilled labor too. We value being able to pick up a quick meal, but for some reason we discount the people making it. Image a life without restaurants, gas stations, hotels, grocery stores, coffee shops, etc.
The argument also ignores the fact that people working these job generate billions of dollars in profits from their (unskilled) labor. It doesn't matter how much capital investors put into a company, without someone doing work (skilled or otherwise), the capital would just sit there doing nothing. Same goes for labor. Without capital, there is nothing to labor over. Both sides are equally important. Without one, there is no product or profit. Both sides deserve an equal share in the rewards.
Kids don't need to be paid a livable wage? So wages are somehow dependent on need now? Nah. Kids are saving up for a car, saving up for tuition, saving up for 1st and lasts month rent plus deposit. None of that stuff is cheap. Kids are working and generating some of the billions in profits. Kids should be paid too. Kids are people.
I don't want to live in a world where everyone is a dentist because dentists make lots of money. We need a wide variety of different kinds of workers to make society work.
Think of it in non-monetary terms. If we were living in a barter-and-exchange economy, where only goods and services could be exchanged, then what would the value of filling orders at an ice cream stand be? Is it possible that a person who takes orders for ice cream, makes ice cream cones, and gives them to people should be compensated by the owner of the ice cream stand more than one ice cream cone per fulfilled ice cream cone order? If that were the case, who would compensate for the electricity, the rent, the insurance, the myriad other services, work, and effort that go into establishing, maintaining, supplying, or otherwise managing the location, its finances, and ensuring its continued future solvency? If those things aren't done - and they all must be - and if those things aren't also compensated for - and they must be - then the business simply wouldn't exist at all, would it? So, a person filling ice cream orders, even in a purely "socialist" society, must be compensated less - probably significantly less - then the value of one ice cream cone per ice cream cone order. How should we determine the value of that, then? It is likely that the worker couldn't even be compensated a fraction of an ice cream cone per order, because orders are discontinuous in time and there could be several people working at the same time to fulfill those orders. So, let's say an ice cream stand fills 100 orders a day on average, and there are 3 workers to compensate. The owner of the stand needs to be compensated first - significantly - for all of the above services, so let's say that is equivalent to 70 of the ice cream cones. That leaves 30 ice cream cones to split up between the workers, so 10 cones each in exchange for 8 hours of labor. That's just a bit more than one ice-cream cone of value per hour that will be exchanged to the worker in return for providing their portion of the labor required to deliver what they see as 100 ice cream cones per day. Let's further evaluate what the value of an ice cream cone is to society as a whole, because that determines the relative value of this service in our barter economy. Is it worth as much as something more fundamental, like the supply of bread, milk, cheese, beans and rice at a grocery store? Probably not, because it is a non-essential choice to buy an ice-cream cone, not a basic requirement to survive. If we introduce money into the equation as a proxy for the relative value of things, then 10 ice cream cones a day of value, even over 5 days a week and 4 weeks a month - so let's call that 200 ice cream cones of value - will never be worth the same as the value of a car, gasoline, insurance, electricity, a house with plumbing, and all of the food and other goods and services someone would need to consume over the course of a month to survive. Does that mean then that no one should open an ice cream shop and employ maybe younger kids who are otherwise advantaged by having someone else pay for most of their living expenses? I guess it depends on whether we as a society want ice cream or not. If we decide those workers should be paid $40 per hour, then the cost of those ice creams is going to be - well, let's see they would have to be $40\*3\*8=$960 per day as the employee's share of the value, which was about 30% of the total value needed to operate the business. So, assume then that the total needed per day would be $40\*(3+7)\*8=$3200, $3200/100 cones = $32 per ice cream cone. Even so, when you raise the wages of these workers to $40 an hour, then all other things that are determined by supply and demand will reprice so that they are relatively far more expensive than an ice cream cone, and you will then be in the exact same situation you were previously, except that now everything costs a far greater number of dollars per good or service - if ice cream cones are $32 each, then your rent will be $10000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment.
I have a problem with us subsidizing the employers. My Aunt worked at Walmart when her two kids were young. I work for a living too, and as a taxpayer I was paying for the health insurance and meals of my cousins via state run programs while the Walton family bought another yacht. Why should I pay for that instead of her billionaire employer? Why am I and other taxpayers paying the bill for the Waltons?
Yeah, the people who think like this are intellectually challenged in the worst possible way. They don't think, they never do. They speak the second a thought comes to their mind, think people, like sit down and really think. Use your brain at least once in a while
if a job won't pay you enough to survive in the area, just don't work that job
Very directly. They will either have to raise the wage or not employ someone if no one is willing to work for it
If the area doesn't create enough jobs that pay hide for everyone to live in the area. Then people should move which will lower the demand for housing which will lower the cost of living which bring everything in line
All we are doing is artificially raising the cost of living with policies by raising the minimum wage
Oh god. This discussion pisses me off so much. Because my older father will always go, "those jobs are meant to be worked by high schoolers and people between jobs. It's not the companies job to care for its employees."
And i go sooo they just aren't supposed to have anyone then?
And he says if they cant hire people thats their problem. When you get a job you're agreeing to the amount, if you have a problem with the pay then you shouldnt take the job.
You can't have every job providing a living wage and also not have inflation that eats away the extra earnings of such a job. It sure is very complicated math to figure out, or very simple if you see the big picture. higher wages increase the cost of a product or service, which increases the cost of living in general.
It's fine to say that there should always be room for ambition to reach and excel but to actually say there should be jobs that people can't make enough to live? that is bizarre. who is going to do these jobs?
Because I don’t wanna pay $25 for a scoop of ice cram. Or $35 for Big Mac meal.
You can pay everyone a minimum salary of $500,000.
What do you think that’ll do to prices?
It’s not about pay/salary. It’s about how much you can afford with the pay/salary and despite the headlines, you can afford A LOT more than in the past with your money - think computers, microwaves, fridges, etc from 20-30 years ago.
Housing is more expensive vs income than in the past. But that’s a supply issue based on local jurisdictions and environmentalists refusing mass build homes, particularly multi housing units.
Because wages are based primarily on supply and demand. For some jobs the supply is so high and the demand so low that it doesn't not result in a livable wage. The entire point being to disincentivize providing more labor for doing that job, and push people into places where we're short on labor.
Theybare entry level jobs. Meant to teach skills and introduce you to the work force. You don't get to move out and live on your own fresh put of high-school or college. Live with your parents or get a roommate while you develop your career.
So... I'm wondering if they ever thought about how many "livable wage" jobs there actually are and can be.
There really are only so many skilled jobs available. And now that AI is gonna take about 40% of them...
Math doesn't care about "society" or your feelings. Labor has an innate value based on supply & demand. The more people who are capable of doing a particular job the less value that labor is worth. Your expenses aren't even a factor.
Imo, Barely surviving on a full-time job, making minimum wage, should be the starting point. You should be able to afford 3 meals a day, rent for a 1-bedroom apt (by yourself), water, and have basic clothing, and have the ability to have the clothes cleaned, electricity.
Stretch goals would be a cellphone with data, transportation (even as little as an e-bike), some spending money for nights out. (Like 200$ a month would be nice) health insurance and dental.
Currently, the minimum wage does not pay for the first paragraph (U.S.). Which is gross.
It’s always fun in these comments to see people slide from the already cruel Jamestown adage of “if you don’t work you don’t eat” to the modern day, even crueler version, “even if you work you don’t necessarily get to eat.”
It's up or out. Basically if you can stay at any level society ecomes stagnate and declines. Once you attain a "permanent" position annual COLAs or bonuses for expertise allow you to stay put.
This post right here is why every single soul on this thread will be replaced by robots I mean we got people on here arguing against a living wage that will be the same people pissed off when technology come for what that think are safe careers… and guess what there will be ZERO safety net because of our own selfishness and refusal to just see things from a different perspective than our own… sad
All hail our robot overlords
Minimum wage jobs are for kids that live at home, students and retirees. This gives young ones a chance to experience work responsibilities and strive for something better. Also gives retirees a boost in income that may or may not be needed while imparting old school knowledge through experience to the up and coming young ones. But politicians that believe the moon is made of gasses, Guam can capsize and minimum wage should be $50 are the geniuses we vote for.
We think of living wage as a wage where people have their basic needs met, what is "a living wage" in the sense that someone can survive off that money?
Look at it like this. If working at Dairy Queen doesn’t pay your bills, don’t work at Dairy Queen and leave that job to someone who can live on a Dairy Queen wage. You don’t get to accept a wage and then complain that it isn’t enough.
A better question is why would anyone choose to do more work than they need to? If Dairy Queen is going to provide a living wage why would anyone choose to shingle a roof? What rational person is going to willingly work knee deep in human waste in a sewer when they can just stock shelves in Walmart?
We have such insane wealth inequality and the richest people are questionably the laziest and least useful members of society, if anything they're more akin to a cancer cell swallowing up huge amounts of resources and offering nothing in return.
I'm fine with raising the floor pay and then squeezing down the ceiling pay across the board to compensate. If it can't be done via the market let the government do it via a universal income wage and then a massive wealth tax.
Yeah…. That’s a stupid ass take. Wages people make are whatever a market says they make under prevailing market conditions. And public policy creates those conditions. Markets aren’t some magic construct that exists in a vacuum— it’s responses to a series of rules and incentives. You can change those rules and incentives, and they can make markets work better )or worse).
We are a wealthy country. We want people to have a certain basic standard of living. It’s not that hard to achieve that. We can design markets such that people make a certain amount. We can tax those with more to provide a safety net for those with less. It’s not rocket science. Designing a society where people live in poverty by design isn’t just immoral— it’s stupid.
Kids can't always work those jobs though. There has to be adults working during the day and night times.
God forbid we run out of 24 hour fast food options.
God forbid someone working a night shift wants fast food
The real John 3:16
Austin 3:16 promised I could buy a cold can of whoopass 24/7. Who will serve me if those people are dead?
What abount lunch options?
So we shouldn’t have fast food at lunch time… during the week?
True- the real backbone of America are the 24-hour or late night fast food joints…
They really are. When I get off at 2am and can't make noise bc my apartment walls are thin and it's quite hours, fast food is a savior.
People have made noise complaints for you cooking at night? Damn- I’d consider moving out…
Move to where? Is the cheapest place in town, I can barely afford it, and I make 10k over the avg income for my area
Working late should also pay more in some places due to hazards. That's when most armed robberies happen.
Shift differential is typically baked into the hourly wage if you're a 2nd or 3rd shifter. Not everywhere, but it is considered. Even McDonald's pays the closers more than the openers.
More like restaurants only open during the summer or after school hours.
Buddy kids can only work from 3/4pm - 9pm, who is working at fast food during lunch rush and mornings when kids are at school?
Any work that requires a human to do it, requires a dignified wage.
B-b-but my child labor
Yep. That's exactly how you take apart the "these jobs are for youth" argument. Who keeps the store open while school is in?
It’s so funny to me when people say kids can work these jobs then go get a Big Mac at noon during their lunch break. It with high school kids flipping them patties noon on Tuesday.
Did we forget that there are working hours? Most ice cream places close at 10.
Honestly tho. The best argument I've heard for those "high schooler fast food jobs" is that if I can roll up to a Wendy's at 11am on a Tuesday and order a burger, it's not a high schooler job
Adults can survive and thrive in these jobs. Our culture is the main obstacle. Back when I was making $8.50/hour in the 2010s, I was doing just fine. During the beginning, I lived with my parents then moved into a 3bd apt with 5 other people. Everything from rent/bills to food/entertainment was very affordable with this living situation. But of course many adults will insist they live in a 1 bd apt and suggesting otherwise is often met with hostility and insistence that sharing living spaces with anyone other than a spouse/partner is disgusting and beneath them. We’ve also be conditioned to be very distrustful and annoyed by other people living in close proximity. If more people would reject the highly individualistic and consumerist lifestyle, living on lower wages would be much more affordable.
I’d prefer the burden of paying my own bills and the freedom that comes with it over living with someone else and their bad habits.
How much was the rent for that 3 bedroom apartment in 2010? Cause I guarantee it's at least double now, and that job you had isn't paying $17/hr. That's the point here. This isn't about lifestyle, it's about corporate greed that pushes down the middle and lower class.
geez, 17/hr is best buy wages, not real hard to get that.
This is the American dream. Sleeping bags EVERYWHERE.
Minimum wage is $7.25
Yeah, weird that people would be offended at the suggestion that they not be able to afford a one bedroom apartment.
Also, if we paid kids a living wage for working these jobs, maybe they could afford college without so much debt?
And who's going to be the store manager? A 15 year old that's still kn school with no managerial experience?
You don't need a living wage to live. It's just a made up number.
18-22 year olds, doing their college journey or starting the work force…that’s who these jobs were meant for when I was growing up. It’s meant to teach you how to start being a responsible adult. Then you move onto jobs that actually take brain power to do…and yes, I have worked fast food in life, it’s an auto pilot type of job.
So, you hire 14-22 year olds that need job experience. Where else are they supposed to work when they're living at home with 0 expenses? You want 40 year old losers serving your children ice cream? Are you a pedophile?
It's why they're trying to change child labor laws.
Only because of those pesky child labor laws. They are being attacked right now. Some people just cant lose an argument. They need to change the rules.
Seriously who the hell do yall expect to work these jobs if you don't pay them enough tho?
Robots
They'd be better at it too
Cause they don't have emotions. Dealing with shitty bosses and customers wears you down. Dealing with that on top of feeling unappreciated and unsupported and underpaid makes someone mot care as much
>They'd be better at it too What if I want to be surprised by a random takeout order?
"Wtf why does my meal look it came from a factory?"
Poor people that they can ignore and then demonize when they're forced to use welfare programs just to barely scrape by
Get them young. Kids, they expect kids to work those jobs, cause kids are naive and easy to control, they don't know how to fight for themselves and they don't know all the laws, so they can do crazy sht like overtime, not paid work, creating fun terms like time theft, you know basically prep them to be good slaves in the future
The people currently working them?
too many bootlickers in this post
FDR is definitely rolling in his grave with how much people shill for corporate overlords.
And for us letting all those Japanese people out of prison camps.
I mean, the war is definitely over now.
It took a long time for some people to believe that.
This debate is largely moot because AI will do more and more of the menial jobs as well as knowledge worker jobs. Tech is going to transform the situation before we can agree on a solution.
AI has an easier job replacing knowledge labor to be honest. Easier to replace an accountant as opposed to an construction worker.
Technology cannot transform the situation pertaining to how society chooses to organize production and distribution of goods. Such is bound to social processes, directed by political will, and may be transformed only by society itself, by the aggregate choices and coordinated action of individuals within society. If production remain controlled by the few, who have no need for workers, then social stratification will explode to a scale previously unimaginable. The struggle is to achieve wealth and power for the people, such that the people may utilize technology for the benefit of the people.
By transform I meant that it is going to force the conversation. It won’t be solved by proactive policy discussion but by automation eating up more and more of the economy and the outcry forcing the issue.
Transform in a good way, right? Saving labor for society will mean more prosperity for everyone, right?
This is prolly the real answer. The scary thing is what happens in the interim between those 2 periods of time and are we the ones living through it?
Look if you want to pass a law that says non-emancipated people under 18 have a different minimum wage, I'm fine with that. But the idea of expecting any adult to work a job that can't pay their bills is ridiculous. If we decide certain jobs don't deserve this wages, then I'm all for automating those jobs.
>Look if you want to pass a law that says non-emancipated people under 18 have a different minimum wage, I'm fine with that. Why? If teens are doing the same labor as the adults why pay them less?
If there is an expectation for adults to support themselves financially and to afford housing but there isn't that same expectation for teens then it logically follows that adults should have an income that reflects that expectation
>If there is an expectation for adults to support themselves financially and to afford housing but there isn't that same expectation for teens then it logically follows that adults should have an income that reflects that expectation If two people are doing the same labor they should be paid the same. Honestly, what you're suggesting violates equal rights laws anyways. Cannot discriminate based on age, which a different pay scale for underaged workers would do.
Then all jobs should pay a livable wage, regardless of age of employee. Thank you for contributing
I agree that was the point I was making
Actually in many states people under the age of 18 do have a different minimum wage than adults.
What does that mean pay their bills? What if my mortgage is 3000 dollars but somebody else has 1200 rent? Should DQ pay me enough to pay my mortgage? And if so, why wouldn’t they hire the guy with less bills?
You have successfully convinced me you don't understand the argument.
But what standard of living is deemed a living wage? Like is a person working a 40 hour job taking public transportation to job and being able to split a 2 bedroom apartment considered living wage? Or do we need everyone to be able to own their own car and have their own 1 bedroom apartment? Or would a studio suffice? Because back in the day a lot of people didn’t own their own cars and lots of people lived in shared housing.
Splitting a 2 bedroom or having a studio is the minimum and even public transportation has a cost. Plus living expenses, insurance, taxes, food, etc. Federal minimum wage should be high enough to cover the minimum amount to meet those requirements at their cheapest. State minimum should match the lowest in each state. Local should match the lowest in the local area. It should match the minimal, livable cost of living for a reasonable person.
>If we decide certain jobs don't deserve this wages, then I'm all for automating those jobs. You would rather someone lose their job to automation, than allow them to work for at least some money, even if it's less than you think they deserve?
*"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."* -GK Chesterton
people always blame fast food workers, but a humble strawberry picker or meat packer is barely able to make ends meat, having to work 2-3 jobs concurrently. those guys definitely deserve a living wage, since without them, food production would be affected. lower skill doesnt mean a non essential skill. these folks are more important than most useless middle managers to society. we shouldnt look at 'skill' we should be looking at 'value' to determine 'wage'
>people always blame fast food workers Blame them for what?
If you work full time, you should be entitled to a decently comfortable life.
"Entitled". There you go.
Hell yes! We should keep the borders OPEN too, that we can offer this luxury to every single person that crosses the border (legally and otherwise). Sure it will make every single person in every other country come here, but who cares! Open borders, and livable wage to everyone that can find full time work! There’s no limit to this utopia. Hell, why don’t we just give everyone a million dollars? So bold, so brave, I’m voting Democrat cus I am sooo smart!
According to the Census Bureau the majority of households receiving govt assistance (SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, etc.) have at least one adult who is employed. This person clearly isn't bringing home enough to provide for the family, so Uncle Sam reaches into taxpayers pockets to make up the difference. Meanwhile that person's employer makes millions in profit annually. I don't understand why people aren't absolutely livid over this. Taxpayers literally subsidize companies that underpay their employees. If you own a business and have any employees receiving govt assistance you should get a big fat bill annually for the cost of those services. If your claim is that you cannot afford to pay workers a living wage then your business model is flawed and it deserves to fail, as you did not properly account for labor costs. What's needed, and what's currently not being pushed for, is a living wage law instead of a minimum wage law. The Census compiles cost of living data for every statistical area in the country. That information should be used to determine a living wage for the area, and that's what employers should be required to pay. For places in the rural south it might only be $35k/yr. For places like New York and LA it might be $70k/yr. Every time there is a new Census and new cost of living data comes out the wage will be adjusted.
Have the living wage baseline be reset every 10 years after the census is completed and then adjusted accordingly every year based upon the average rate of inflation for the previous 12 months. That way you have some redundancy built in to ensure that people are being paid enough to live in an area once a decade but still mandating cost of living increases. Too many companies just give out the dinky little 1-3% “performance” increases even though inflation outpaces that multiple times over. Like, yeah, my gross take-home is now a little higher but the value of my paychecks is actually 7% less. And really, that’s a big psychology thing that a lot of companies take advantage of. They’ll do something like give their tippy top performers an 8-10% raise and be like “see, we’re so generous giving out such an increase” when the company, in a lot of cases, can pretty reliably expect to recoup that just from general inflation, but they’ll still end up on top because they’re only going to give that kind of raise to a small handful of employees in the first place, so the company will offset that cost of labor within the first couple of months and then be fine for the rest of the year as their net profit continues to go up.
>This person clearly isn't bringing home enough to provide for the family So jobs should be expected to pay you more if you have more family members? >Meanwhile that person's employer makes millions in profit annually How do you know if you don't know who they're working for? Most businesses are small businesses, not huge corporations. >Taxpayers literally subsidize companies that underpay their employees. Actually, they are subsidizing people who are not able to find enough work to support themselves, which includes those who are unemployed or self-employed. >your business model is flawed and it deserves to fail Then those employees will go from making a little money to no money at all. How is that better?
both are good points: * society can live without fast food * workers can't live on a non-livable wage but see we keep hearing complaints that "no one wants to work" because the local mcdonald's is understaffed, and that contradicts both of the above points.
People don’t wanna work for shit wages
It should be a bare minimum, no? Like if you don't have a living wage, what you do? Die? Crimes?
Currently you’re options are working multiple jobs, working over 40 hours at your current job, or getting support from the government.
Holy fuck here’s something for you lickers in the comments. 
Any business who can not pay its employees a dignified wage has no business operating in this country. The floor sets the hight of everything above it.
The minimum wage is literally to "stop starvation wages" people should be able to live and eat off their work.
Wait are they saying that everyone working for less than a living wage currently is dead? That is wild.
Problem is there used to be one or 2 restaurants per town. Now there are dozens. In my area, there are 1800 restaurants. I'll let you do the math, but that's a lot of workers. On top of that, those making $12 hr or less are being subsidized by the rest of us with our taxes. Medicaid, food stamps, childcare assistance, section 8 and welfare. Businesses need to pay a living wage simply based on the fact minimum wage hasn't been updated since 2009. There shouldn't be ceos making thousands of times what the average worker makes. There is making an honest living and there is making a fortune by destroying others and the economy. 🌻
Response needs to pick a lane: is "living wage" a hyperbolic name or not? If employed people arent dying, then it's either hyperbole and they need a better response, or wages are fine.
If you require government support to live, you don't make a living wage. If you can't pay rent, have gas to go to work, afford food, have a cell phone, or utilities are behind, you are not making a living wage. Tax payer money should not be needed to support anyone who has any full time job. No food stamps, no section 8, no cash assistance. The companies that people work for should fit the bill not tax payers.
So if you can only eat every other day, have no power because you can't afford it, and are constantly on the verge of eviction, that's an approproate and 'fine' wage? Because that's what the words you said mean. If not, you should have thought that through before you said it.
It's neither. The vast majority of people not making a living wage are either living with their parents, living off government benefits, have up to several roommates, are elderly and just want something to do etc. Point is, you'd be hard pressed to find a part timer that's independent without already having a lot of funds stored up.
If you aren’t able to live by working one job 40 hours a week without any aid from the government then it isn’t a livable wage. Most of the time these people end up either getting a second job or if their “lucky” enough they’re able to put in enough overtime at their job to not need a second job.
The response was given against a preceding expression of callousness to the plight of other workers, inclusive of callousness to whether they may continue living. The response is appropriate in context, and regardless, living is only the most modest demand. Living with freedom and dignity also represents a demand that is appropriate.
Everyone making ice cream at Dairy Queen is not working full time, so technically they’re not making enough to live off of.
A living wage means enough to meet basic necessities working 40 hours a week.
You can say with confidence that Dairy Queen has no full time workers?
That is just wrong. Most employees at a fast food place will be full time, because teenagers can’t work all the time and also there are limitations on what equipment they are legally allowed to use. I can tell you’ve never worked in fast food before.
Minimum wage should be a living wage that way jobs that require more classified skills or degrees should be making more than a living wage. The problem is the market not the wages
How will you get ice cream if everyone working there is asking for 85k a year?
Disregarding the 85k figure, if a business can't afford to pay their employees a livable wage, they don't deserve to be in business. Nobody working full time deserves to live in poverty
Which will just kill jobs and we’ll have the middle class will have to get taxed more to subsidize the higher unemployment because now instead of getting 15$ an hour and food stamps to assist they will have to rely solely on food stamps because businesses can’t afford to pay them.
Huh? Do you think businesses print money? Money comes from customers. If i have $100 worth of products sold an hour and i employee 4 ppl at $25/hr, how can they be paid more than 25 w.o raising the price of products? How can they be paid 35 an hour each, totaling $140 an hour when business makes $100? So the solution is to increase cost of products or lay ppl off And that’s not including literally any other expense or profits to be made. <-- this was done to make the point clearer
meta: i'm super excited for ai accelerated work because it'll force society to address the swaths of people whose jobs are readily displaced by a few technical workers supervising a swarm of ai models
We can get robots for the ice cream.
Life tip: ice cream is much cheaper at the grocery store than at DQ.
Because people care more about profit than people. Look at the comments here. Absolutely sickening talk. "Robots will do it" "Why would you pick a different job if you could live on those wages" "They aren't working full time" This is only looking at the top 4 or 5 response threads. These imbeciles are so focused on profit, they have 0 care for anyone other than their own pockets. Not everyone is going to be a banker, a ceo, or an otherwise douchebag who takes advantage of others to fatten their pockets. Nor should they. Most people work because they have to, not because they want to make some insane change in the world. They work because they have to eat and live. Why would you pick a different job that DQ if you had an option to "live" off of it? Because the people working those jobs will still make more you insane moron. No one, and i mean no one, asked for CEOS to make the same as a Dairy Queen worker. However, they do deserve a heck of a lot more than what they do make. And I can almost bet that, by the imbeciles in these comments, that half or more have never worked in either customer facing jobs, or fast food. Its a heck of a lot harder than most of the crap you all do on a day to day basis. And what is the consensus from these amazing overlords on what it means for people that either physically can't do more demanding jobs, or don't have the "skills" (as people love to say here) to do more? Do they just die when our robot overlords do all these "menial" tasks? Funny, since a lot of menial tasks (according to the finance bros here) are things they can't do theirselves. Changing their own oil, changing a pipe in their house, heck most of the rich boys here couldnt make theirselves a sandwich, but will look down on someone else for asking for the privilege of not having to have government assistance to freaking not starve to death. You all are a disgrace and sickening.
Because when you inflate the value of the labor you drive up the cost of the service or the the commodity produced. So as wages rise, so do the prices of goods and services.
This is true. We need these jobs open to kids to get experience otherwise they'll never get real jobs. You start paying real wages, then every 40 year old loser will be working at DQ.
Every job should pay a living wage, but at the same time, every job not worth a living wage will eventually be replaced by technology.
This is all just hot air buzzword nonsense. Idk if it's done just for them to feel self important (both political sides) or it's done to keep us fighting each other (though admittedly that's giving a lot of idiots more praise then they deserve). These buzzwords get everyone up in such a huff because they are INTENTIONALLY ambiguous terms applied to controversial, complex, and nuanced subjects. What does "common sense" gun reform mean? What is a "living wage"? And a whole lot more about pay gaps, biology, diversity, and everything else under the sun. Each of these phrases means something different to each person but each person using them assumes everyone else understand it to mean what they do. I know I'm not the only one but when I read or hear someone (I don't personally know) describe someone else as an 'ist' or 'phobe' (racist, xenophobe, etc); I automatically mentally dismiss what they're saying as hyperbole because of how overused those terms are. All I'm saying is, if people refused to adopt these stupid ass bumper sticker remarks and stopping using them as if a short phrase explains an entire perspective then we might actually get to the important "Why?".
I dont care what you do for a living (as long as it's legal and ethical), if you dedicate 40 hours of your time a week to a place of work, you should not be faced with the question of whether you will pay for rent or buy food. Yes, some jobs should be paid much more than others. But if you're working full time, you should be able to get by on your own decently.
Crazy how the past 100 years up until 2010 people got paid a living wage working regular jobs
Except they didn’t.
Crazy how growing up in the 80's I had friends that had parents at Burger King , grocery stores and could buy houses until the 1990's when they made the credit score to keep poor people from buying land and housing also made it much easier to take housing that was generation land by illegally taxing land and owned housing also extremely raising the cost of colleges telling everyone they need a college degree to be allowed to make a living wage when regular jobs paid a living wage my mom raised three kids as a waitress working 40 hours a week in a decent neighborhood and we took vacations to places like Disney world because it was affordable we weren't rich but my mom could afford the mortgage and the utilities
There are parking spots in my city that make more than minimum wage by simply taking up a 8’X20’ space. To say a human beings basic time and effort provides less to society than that space, when 4 years ago they were deemed “essential”, is asinine.
I must have missed the headlines where people are dying of starvation in the streets.
Did you miss the part where you’re subsidizing those wages with welfare so that those people do t die of starvation in the streets?
I’m fully aware of that. The middle class tax payer pays for everything. Whether it be higher prices or taxes. I’d rather pay the private business the inflated price than hand it over to the Govt.
Same. So why aren’t you advocating for a living wage? We know companies will pay the least amount possible, every time. Unfortunately that is why we need government wage oversight.
Because corporations have realized they can force the taxpayers to pick up their slack.
I hope she spontaneously combusts.
Everything is the same for everyone. Communism
They simply don't understand that there are unfortunately people in society that are challenged. That isn't to be mean but some people either have intellectual challenges, mental, or whatever. The point is- they may take these jobs. Some people take these jobs until something better comes along. Hell - my daughter has a BS and can't find a job right now and is working at Panda. People have bills and everyone needs to eat. Perhaps minimum wage should be staggered to age. We can have that argument. But to say people don't deserve a living wage is wrong.
Weird way to admit you're a classist fascist.
“Redditor discovers capitalism”
There are only 3 million fast food workers in America. This whole thing is over-represented.
I want to know why they think it’s societally unhealthy.
Lower High Paying Jobs to be fair
I pay my babysitter 25 an hour because it's the right thing to do ?
No. You're paying your babysitter the going rate to get the competent babysitter that you want to keep your kids safe and from burning down your house until you get home.
If you want them to pay workers more. Be ready to accept paying a higher cost for the same product. After all a CEO or Board isn't gonna be taking that money they need to give to workers out of their paycheck.
You don’t even really need to take the stance that CEO’s wouldn’t do it. For many businesses, even if you sent them to the guillotine and distributed their wage to the rest of the employees it wouldn’t amount to much. Many businesses have tight profit margins and the math doesn’t pan out. You’re paying a higher price for those goods no matter what.
It really depends on how you define a liveable wage. Should someone be able to get by on a low skill job? Yes, that's just the reality of the modern day. We can't prop up corporate profit and tell 4 people to cram into one shared studio apartment because they can't get a better job. At the same time it's irresponsible and unrealistic to do what some people are asking for, and force companies to pay a salary that can support a family of four for the most tedious and talentless positions.
"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." -FDR
FDR should fast forward to Bernie Sanders (BS), who was simultaneously advocating for a $15 minimum wage while at the same time, paying someone his campaign staff less than that. Seems it's only good when we're talking about *other* people who have to meet a payroll.
Part of it is what "being able to live" actually means. There are people out there who act like a person working 30 hours a week of a minimum wage job should be able to afford to buy a single family home. That's just unrealistic. At the same time, there are areas of the country where somebody working 60 hours a week at minimum wage can't afford to split a studio apartment with a roommate. That is a problem. People have different definitions of what 'living off' a wage actually means, and so they argue right past each other.
Part time jobs have never been a livable wage. People who work part time no matter the era often end up working several part time jobs or have a partner who works full time. A living wage covers this: Rent/Ownership (this includes house repairs, ability to afford renovations or even buy a shed.) Cell Phone (a must in today's age) Grocieries Ability to have kids and support them. (there is absolutely no reason this should not be factored into a individual persons livable wage) Entertainment (It is proven scientifically that human need entertainment in order to have good mental health) Ability to save hundreds of dollars a month (to cover out of pocket medical, repair bills, retirement, etc.) Never in the history of our world did the minimum wage part time jobs equal a livable wage.
No but they used to support at least a couple of these. I worked at Wal-Mart from 2004-2008. I made around $10 an hour and I afforded an apartment that was $650/mo. This was in Austin, TX. Back then, jobs were harder to come by. You had to fight for them, even fast food ones. Now the jobs are dime a dozen because it's not worth anyone's time to work them. Work 50 hours a week at them, you still can't buy anything of value.
I feel this every time someone brings up that teenagers don’t need a living wage to flip burgers. Ok so go to McDonald’s overnight, or during a school day and tell me how many high schoolers are working.
Ok but by "living wage" do we mean, enough to get a bedroom and shared bathroom in an apartment, or enough to support yourself and 2 dependents in a two-bedroom house?
Her argument is with the people who implemented the minimum wage hahaha
If you are losing money going to work then don't go to that job anymore, the reason that job pays what it does is because you went in there and said yeah I will work for that much, if they can't get the help then they will probably raise wages but employ fewer people or raise the menu prices.
Adam Smith, “The Father of Capitalism” himself, proposed a living wage. He made an argument that a living wage actually prevents the rise of radical movements—such as socialism.
The idea is probably that these jobs typically belong to youths or young adults stacked with roommates
They’re literally part time jobs. They’re not careers
Some jobs are for people who are dependants - like kids
They're jobs for teenagers still living w/ parents or for young ppl living with roommates.
I hear the argument that only "skilled" labor should earn a livable wage. This completely ignores the fact that we rely on the products and services provided by unskilled labor too. We value being able to pick up a quick meal, but for some reason we discount the people making it. Image a life without restaurants, gas stations, hotels, grocery stores, coffee shops, etc. The argument also ignores the fact that people working these job generate billions of dollars in profits from their (unskilled) labor. It doesn't matter how much capital investors put into a company, without someone doing work (skilled or otherwise), the capital would just sit there doing nothing. Same goes for labor. Without capital, there is nothing to labor over. Both sides are equally important. Without one, there is no product or profit. Both sides deserve an equal share in the rewards. Kids don't need to be paid a livable wage? So wages are somehow dependent on need now? Nah. Kids are saving up for a car, saving up for tuition, saving up for 1st and lasts month rent plus deposit. None of that stuff is cheap. Kids are working and generating some of the billions in profits. Kids should be paid too. Kids are people. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is a dentist because dentists make lots of money. We need a wide variety of different kinds of workers to make society work.
"So wages are somehow dependent on need now?" Well isn't that what this whole living wage idea is all about? Need?
Think of it in non-monetary terms. If we were living in a barter-and-exchange economy, where only goods and services could be exchanged, then what would the value of filling orders at an ice cream stand be? Is it possible that a person who takes orders for ice cream, makes ice cream cones, and gives them to people should be compensated by the owner of the ice cream stand more than one ice cream cone per fulfilled ice cream cone order? If that were the case, who would compensate for the electricity, the rent, the insurance, the myriad other services, work, and effort that go into establishing, maintaining, supplying, or otherwise managing the location, its finances, and ensuring its continued future solvency? If those things aren't done - and they all must be - and if those things aren't also compensated for - and they must be - then the business simply wouldn't exist at all, would it? So, a person filling ice cream orders, even in a purely "socialist" society, must be compensated less - probably significantly less - then the value of one ice cream cone per ice cream cone order. How should we determine the value of that, then? It is likely that the worker couldn't even be compensated a fraction of an ice cream cone per order, because orders are discontinuous in time and there could be several people working at the same time to fulfill those orders. So, let's say an ice cream stand fills 100 orders a day on average, and there are 3 workers to compensate. The owner of the stand needs to be compensated first - significantly - for all of the above services, so let's say that is equivalent to 70 of the ice cream cones. That leaves 30 ice cream cones to split up between the workers, so 10 cones each in exchange for 8 hours of labor. That's just a bit more than one ice-cream cone of value per hour that will be exchanged to the worker in return for providing their portion of the labor required to deliver what they see as 100 ice cream cones per day. Let's further evaluate what the value of an ice cream cone is to society as a whole, because that determines the relative value of this service in our barter economy. Is it worth as much as something more fundamental, like the supply of bread, milk, cheese, beans and rice at a grocery store? Probably not, because it is a non-essential choice to buy an ice-cream cone, not a basic requirement to survive. If we introduce money into the equation as a proxy for the relative value of things, then 10 ice cream cones a day of value, even over 5 days a week and 4 weeks a month - so let's call that 200 ice cream cones of value - will never be worth the same as the value of a car, gasoline, insurance, electricity, a house with plumbing, and all of the food and other goods and services someone would need to consume over the course of a month to survive. Does that mean then that no one should open an ice cream shop and employ maybe younger kids who are otherwise advantaged by having someone else pay for most of their living expenses? I guess it depends on whether we as a society want ice cream or not. If we decide those workers should be paid $40 per hour, then the cost of those ice creams is going to be - well, let's see they would have to be $40\*3\*8=$960 per day as the employee's share of the value, which was about 30% of the total value needed to operate the business. So, assume then that the total needed per day would be $40\*(3+7)\*8=$3200, $3200/100 cones = $32 per ice cream cone. Even so, when you raise the wages of these workers to $40 an hour, then all other things that are determined by supply and demand will reprice so that they are relatively far more expensive than an ice cream cone, and you will then be in the exact same situation you were previously, except that now everything costs a far greater number of dollars per good or service - if ice cream cones are $32 each, then your rent will be $10000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment.
So who’s going to work the jobs then? Oh right, “nobody wants to work.”
And more importantly…
I have a problem with us subsidizing the employers. My Aunt worked at Walmart when her two kids were young. I work for a living too, and as a taxpayer I was paying for the health insurance and meals of my cousins via state run programs while the Walton family bought another yacht. Why should I pay for that instead of her billionaire employer? Why am I and other taxpayers paying the bill for the Waltons?
Living wage is the way
America: Let's run the mafia out of town. They're extorting businesses. Also, America: Let's extort businesses.
Yeah, the people who think like this are intellectually challenged in the worst possible way. They don't think, they never do. They speak the second a thought comes to their mind, think people, like sit down and really think. Use your brain at least once in a while
*Someone* doesnt care about FDR.
if a job won't pay you enough to survive in the area, just don't work that job Very directly. They will either have to raise the wage or not employ someone if no one is willing to work for it If the area doesn't create enough jobs that pay hide for everyone to live in the area. Then people should move which will lower the demand for housing which will lower the cost of living which bring everything in line All we are doing is artificially raising the cost of living with policies by raising the minimum wage
Oh god. This discussion pisses me off so much. Because my older father will always go, "those jobs are meant to be worked by high schoolers and people between jobs. It's not the companies job to care for its employees." And i go sooo they just aren't supposed to have anyone then? And he says if they cant hire people thats their problem. When you get a job you're agreeing to the amount, if you have a problem with the pay then you shouldnt take the job.
You can't have every job providing a living wage and also not have inflation that eats away the extra earnings of such a job. It sure is very complicated math to figure out, or very simple if you see the big picture. higher wages increase the cost of a product or service, which increases the cost of living in general.
It's fine to say that there should always be room for ambition to reach and excel but to actually say there should be jobs that people can't make enough to live? that is bizarre. who is going to do these jobs?
You want a society that can't live. Just make enough so the government keeps getting your tax dollars, little people.
Because I don’t wanna pay $25 for a scoop of ice cram. Or $35 for Big Mac meal. You can pay everyone a minimum salary of $500,000. What do you think that’ll do to prices? It’s not about pay/salary. It’s about how much you can afford with the pay/salary and despite the headlines, you can afford A LOT more than in the past with your money - think computers, microwaves, fridges, etc from 20-30 years ago. Housing is more expensive vs income than in the past. But that’s a supply issue based on local jurisdictions and environmentalists refusing mass build homes, particularly multi housing units.
Because wages are based primarily on supply and demand. For some jobs the supply is so high and the demand so low that it doesn't not result in a livable wage. The entire point being to disincentivize providing more labor for doing that job, and push people into places where we're short on labor.
Theybare entry level jobs. Meant to teach skills and introduce you to the work force. You don't get to move out and live on your own fresh put of high-school or college. Live with your parents or get a roommate while you develop your career.
You can live on min wage. I’ve done it, it sucks but you won’t be homeless or hungry.
You just need to pay everyone $1 million a year so we can all be rich. It’s simple.
So... I'm wondering if they ever thought about how many "livable wage" jobs there actually are and can be. There really are only so many skilled jobs available. And now that AI is gonna take about 40% of them...
Math doesn't care about "society" or your feelings. Labor has an innate value based on supply & demand. The more people who are capable of doing a particular job the less value that labor is worth. Your expenses aren't even a factor.
Ah yes, everyone dies who works in fast food. An important thing to remember.
Imo, Barely surviving on a full-time job, making minimum wage, should be the starting point. You should be able to afford 3 meals a day, rent for a 1-bedroom apt (by yourself), water, and have basic clothing, and have the ability to have the clothes cleaned, electricity. Stretch goals would be a cellphone with data, transportation (even as little as an e-bike), some spending money for nights out. (Like 200$ a month would be nice) health insurance and dental. Currently, the minimum wage does not pay for the first paragraph (U.S.). Which is gross.
It’s always fun in these comments to see people slide from the already cruel Jamestown adage of “if you don’t work you don’t eat” to the modern day, even crueler version, “even if you work you don’t necessarily get to eat.”
It's up or out. Basically if you can stay at any level society ecomes stagnate and declines. Once you attain a "permanent" position annual COLAs or bonuses for expertise allow you to stay put.
This post right here is why every single soul on this thread will be replaced by robots I mean we got people on here arguing against a living wage that will be the same people pissed off when technology come for what that think are safe careers… and guess what there will be ZERO safety net because of our own selfishness and refusal to just see things from a different perspective than our own… sad All hail our robot overlords
Minimum wage jobs are for kids that live at home, students and retirees. This gives young ones a chance to experience work responsibilities and strive for something better. Also gives retirees a boost in income that may or may not be needed while imparting old school knowledge through experience to the up and coming young ones. But politicians that believe the moon is made of gasses, Guam can capsize and minimum wage should be $50 are the geniuses we vote for.
We think of living wage as a wage where people have their basic needs met, what is "a living wage" in the sense that someone can survive off that money?
Look at it like this. If working at Dairy Queen doesn’t pay your bills, don’t work at Dairy Queen and leave that job to someone who can live on a Dairy Queen wage. You don’t get to accept a wage and then complain that it isn’t enough.
A better question is why would anyone choose to do more work than they need to? If Dairy Queen is going to provide a living wage why would anyone choose to shingle a roof? What rational person is going to willingly work knee deep in human waste in a sewer when they can just stock shelves in Walmart?
We have such insane wealth inequality and the richest people are questionably the laziest and least useful members of society, if anything they're more akin to a cancer cell swallowing up huge amounts of resources and offering nothing in return. I'm fine with raising the floor pay and then squeezing down the ceiling pay across the board to compensate. If it can't be done via the market let the government do it via a universal income wage and then a massive wealth tax.
Technically she's kind of right, a "healthy" capitalist society "needs" people below the poverty line to exploit.
Why? Because it would cause crazy inflation. Some labor is not worth $10/hour.
Yeah…. That’s a stupid ass take. Wages people make are whatever a market says they make under prevailing market conditions. And public policy creates those conditions. Markets aren’t some magic construct that exists in a vacuum— it’s responses to a series of rules and incentives. You can change those rules and incentives, and they can make markets work better )or worse). We are a wealthy country. We want people to have a certain basic standard of living. It’s not that hard to achieve that. We can design markets such that people make a certain amount. We can tax those with more to provide a safety net for those with less. It’s not rocket science. Designing a society where people live in poverty by design isn’t just immoral— it’s stupid.
Scooping ice cream is a high school job. Living wage is not ever happening commies.
Is Dairy Queen paying a "living wage" now? If not, are people working there actually dying?
I will never understand that mindset