Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation

[joe189man]

Jobs are paid what it takes to reasonably retain people in them and fit their budgets. I've kept some people at very low pay for very skilled work because I knew I could keep them at that rate, I've also paid some fucking morons a higher wage than I've ever paid far superior staff in the past because there's a labour shortage and that's what it takes to keep the business running.

It is what it is.

Some of the MOST mindless labour is paid quite handsomely specifically because it's unbearably repetitive and dull. I was making far less money as a fashion stylist (aka retail sales person) in a high end clothing store, which required a rather daunting amount of product and customer service knowledge than I did when I worked in a factory making scotch tape dispensers. $7 vs $13.

Why? Because it was hard to get people to mindlessly make scotch tape dispensers at weird hours, and meanwhile EVERY young woman wanted to work at this particularly elite clothing store. I mean, that's where I met my husband, so it was worth the pay cut for me, plus I wanted to blow my fucking brains out making tape dispensers.

It's the same way chefs are generally paid total shit, because there's never a shortage of new young chefs willing to be underpaid and abused in the restaurant world.

I know a guy who made a fortune in the summers working the floor at a yeast factory doing overnights. And he got benefits!!!

How much someone gets paid for their work has so much more to do with demand than it does with the quality of their skill set. Countless PhDs can attest to that.

So sure, we can muse about what the hypothetical "grocery bagger" should be valued at, but at the end of day, what they are paid will completely depend on how much the grocery store needs them to function and how replaceable they are.
NOT how skilled their labour is.

The above is well said,

An employer owes the employee nothing beyond what was agreed upon in the employment contract. No job is taken by force.

An employer will provide compensation and benefits according to its needs and should not be regulated/required to pay more or less per government intervention.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Honest Question: If we aren't going to pay workers living wages, then why should they buy into our economic system? If instead, we want a dog-eat-dog world, then what's wrong with these workers saying "screw this" and simply robbing or looting the store? They are simply demonstrating that they have superior physical attributes (Darwinism) and redefining the economic system in terms that benefit them. There is a song about this by a hip-hop group called Dead Prez called "Hell Yeah" that I found to be a really interesting take on this sort of libertarian thinking.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

If your mandated "living wage" is higher than the value that job provides, guess what happens?
That grocery bagger job disappears, it goes away entirely. 

People aren't going to pay $15 for a gallon of milk, just to subsidize the person who wants to make a living bagging groceries.
They would rather bag the groceries themselves.

I’d love to see an explanation for how milk prices increase ~500% from a portion of labor costs increasing, at most, ~40%.

I would say $15/gallon milk is hyperbole to make a point.  If wages are increased above the market rate, it's not going to come out of the company's profit, it's going to come out of yours.  But guess who also has to pay more for their groceries (and every other staple) now, the employee who was just "helped" by a government mandated pay raise.  So all of that extra money the y were going to be making is now going right back into the pockets of the shareholders (the rich).  It's much like the sweatshop owners who also owned the housing of their employees.  Sure they paid their employees more when the government got involved, but they also raised their rental rates.  People inclined to make money & get ahead will find a way to do so.  Those inclined to play the victim will waste their lives sitting back waiting for someone else to solve a problem.

It takes very little to raise wages if the price increase is passed directly to the workers.

Paying an additional penny per pound for tomatoes, if that penny flowed to picker wages, would almost double their wages. Yes, we'd have to pay an extra $.03?/week to lift a picker out of poverty. I can afford that. You can too. So can the picker who now makes $12k more/year.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/

If farm worker wages go up by 47 percent, grocery bills would go up just $21.15 a year, or $1.76 a month.

That assumes that if farm worker wages go up 47% everyone else won't want their wage to go up 47%.

If Bob used to get paid $10/hour and now earns $14.70/hour why shouldn't Steph who used to get paid $20/hour now want to earn $29.40/hour? Why wouldn't Joe who used to get paid $200/hour now want to earn $294.00/hour?

Labour is a fungible commodity and it kinda is arbitrary to say that you're going to raise A's wages without doing anything about B, C, D, E, F's wages...

[Metalcat]

Jobs are paid what it takes to reasonably retain people in them and fit their budgets. I've kept some people at very low pay for very skilled work because I knew I could keep them at that rate, I've also paid some fucking morons a higher wage than I've ever paid far superior staff in the past because there's a labour shortage and that's what it takes to keep the business running.

It is what it is.

Some of the MOST mindless labour is paid quite handsomely specifically because it's unbearably repetitive and dull. I was making far less money as a fashion stylist (aka retail sales person) in a high end clothing store, which required a rather daunting amount of product and customer service knowledge than I did when I worked in a factory making scotch tape dispensers. $7 vs $13.

Why? Because it was hard to get people to mindlessly make scotch tape dispensers at weird hours, and meanwhile EVERY young woman wanted to work at this particularly elite clothing store. I mean, that's where I met my husband, so it was worth the pay cut for me, plus I wanted to blow my fucking brains out making tape dispensers.

It's the same way chefs are generally paid total shit, because there's never a shortage of new young chefs willing to be underpaid and abused in the restaurant world.

I know a guy who made a fortune in the summers working the floor at a yeast factory doing overnights. And he got benefits!!!

How much someone gets paid for their work has so much more to do with demand than it does with the quality of their skill set. Countless PhDs can attest to that.

So sure, we can muse about what the hypothetical "grocery bagger" should be valued at, but at the end of day, what they are paid will completely depend on how much the grocery store needs them to function and how replaceable they are.
NOT how skilled their labour is.

The above is well said,

An employer owes the employee nothing beyond what was agreed upon in the employment contract. No job is taken by force.

An employer will provide compensation and benefits according to its needs and should not be regulated/required to pay more or less per government intervention.

Actually, I think my above points are justification for mandating a livable minimum wage, because the market doesn't care about people needing to be able to live, but I do.

But whatevs, to each their own.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

I don't think we should provide a living wage. That can be spent and wasted and then you end up having to pay for further services (health, accommodation, etc). Plus those who can't work a full-time week, or who have a million dependants, still won't have a "living wage" even if we have a nominally living wage. Just mandate a baseline of services for each person. It's cheaper in the long run (it's cheaper to provide someone bargain basement accommodation directly than it is to provide someone enough money to nominally find accommodation of their choice) and there are fewer inflationary pressures that way.

[the_gastropod]

That assumes that if farm worker wages go up 47% everyone else won't want their wage to go up 47%.

If Bob used to get paid $10/hour and now earns $14.70/hour why shouldn't Steph who used to get paid $20/hour now want to earn $29.40/hour? Why wouldn't Joe who used to get paid $200/hour now want to earn $294.00/hour?

Labour is a fungible commodity and it kinda is arbitrary to say that you're going to raise A's wages without doing anything about B, C, D, E, F's wages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Everyone always wants to be paid more money. Other people's pay changing has no affect on that. Also: it's really sad to me how many people have this crabs-in-a-barrel mentality.

[Metalcat]

I don't think we should provide a living wage. That can be spent and wasted and then you end up having to pay for further services (health, accommodation, etc). Plus those who can't work a full-time week, or who have a million dependants, still won't have a "living wage" even if we have a nominally living wage. Just mandate a baseline of services for each person. It's cheaper in the long run (it's cheaper to provide someone bargain basement accommodation directly than it is to provide someone enough money to nominally find accommodation of their choice) and there are fewer inflationary pressures that way.

Sure, that sounds all good in theory, except that mandating services requires an astronomical amount of money to run and regulate.

Also, mandated services tend to be the first budgets to be squeezed and slashed as part of conservative "small government" campaign promises.

You can't solve all issues with a nanny state the same way you can't solve all issues with abdicating responsibility for people either.

There's a reason these ostensibly "simple" solutions aren't actually done.

[American GenX]

Prices are already too high.  We have a high minimum wage where I live, and with each increase, it has really jacked up prices for eating out.   I almost never eat out anymore.   In the end, more businesses have closed or left the area, and more people had cuts in hours or lost their job altogether.

[Zikoris]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

[LoanShark]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

[Jack0Life]

That’s highly dependent on area. COL varies greatly around the country. In my particular area rent is roughly 1k. For someone making 15 an hour, with health insurance and taxes taken out, rent is taking almost half their income. Add even one child and that’s even harder. And working at a food service job in my area often only pays 10-12 dollars.

You still haven't answered the question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in your area of the United States?

You are saying that $15/hour is not enough, which equates to over $30,000, for bagging groceries!
So how much should they make?  $40,000?  $50,000?

You can't possibly think stores could pay grocery baggers that much, can you?

They can.

This is not a logical answer.

[Metalcat]

Re: minimum wage raise in Canada and automation

I repeat though, Canada had a nation wide labour shortage before covid hit. It was getting to critical levels with no easy solution in sight. That was driving automation as well according to the experts at the federal employment services department, who are freaking the fuck out about this.

That said, there are no simple solutions. The system is always squeezing and always looking for ways to eek out the tiniest bits of profit.

According to proponents of the Two-Income Trap, one of the worst things that ever happened for middle class families was actually women joining the workforce. Suddenly most households had a whole extra income, so the market responded to dispose of the newfound cash and everything developed a new equilibrium that actually left the middle class far worse off despite working double the hours on average.

Everyone should have ended up rich, but they didn't.

Raising minimum wage mitigates some issues, but has domino effects all through the system. As does raising or lowering taxes. Adding or removing social services, etc, etc, etc.

It's also remarkably difficult to predict the downstream effects of various economic forces and changes.

People constantly spout of their ideas of what would be a "solution" and I just have to laugh. Whatever solution one could generate, it's not a static system, some new force will arise to capitalize on it.

[Zikoris]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

For sure there are new jobs created now, but the issue is that virtually none of the jobs being created are things within the ability level of a low IQ person, and most of the jobs being eliminated are those jobs. Basically, I think we as a society have to figure out how to deal with the fact that a growing percentage of our population will be literally incapable of doing any job that exists, and that will happen very soon.

I have no idea what the solution is. I imagine UBI would help to an extent, but it wouldn't replace the feeling of purpose a lot of people get from working.

[GuitarStv]

Honest Question: If we aren't going to pay workers living wages, then why should they buy into our economic system? If instead, we want a dog-eat-dog world, then what's wrong with these workers saying "screw this" and simply robbing or looting the store? They are simply demonstrating that they have superior physical attributes (Darwinism) and redefining the economic system in terms that benefit them. There is a song about this by a hip-hop group called Dead Prez called "Hell Yeah" that I found to be a really interesting take on this sort of libertarian thinking.

They shouldn't buy into such a system.  It's against their own interests.

There's more than enough to go around for everyone today.  If we continue to allow those at the top to increase wealth disparity (keeping those at the bottom from experiencing the kinds of benefits and gains that have been made over the decades) we should expect more instances of exactly the type of behaviour you're talking about.

It's why I've ended up left leaning . . . selfishness.  I selfishly want a world where people have easy enough lives that they aren't driven to hurt/harm others and want to work together to improve society.  That makes the world much better for me.

[the_gastropod]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

I can't speak to Canada's issues. But in the U.S., the real minimum wage value is the lowest it's been since around 1945. I think a lot of people fool themselves into this line of thinking because on the surface, it sounds reasonable / like "common sense". But there's no credible evidence any of this is true [1]. This point of view just supply-side economics, which isn't taken seriously in the contemporary field of economics. Make no mistake, if employers could replace employees with automation today and save $0.01, they would. If a job hasn't been replaced by automation yet, it's probably because they couldn't. And if you think a relatively small increase in labor expense is the difference between automation and not, then that job would be gone within a year or two anyway, as technology prices plummet.

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x

[bacchi]

I have no idea what the solution is. I imagine UBI would help to an extent, but it wouldn't replace the feeling of purpose a lot of people get from working.

Climate change might help with that.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

That assumes that if farm worker wages go up 47% everyone else won't want their wage to go up 47%.

If Bob used to get paid $10/hour and now earns $14.70/hour why shouldn't Steph who used to get paid $20/hour now want to earn $29.40/hour? Why wouldn't Joe who used to get paid $200/hour now want to earn $294.00/hour?

Labour is a fungible commodity and it kinda is arbitrary to say that you're going to raise A's wages without doing anything about B, C, D, E, F's wages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Everyone always wants to be paid more money. Other people's pay changing has no affect on that. Also: it's really sad to me how many people have this crabs-in-a-barrel mentality.

Of course other people's changing pay affects what I think my own labour is worth.  In fact, it directly affects what my own labour is objectively worth. If you doubled minimum wage then someone who was previously on 2x min wage is no longer going to be happy with that price and is no longer going to be employable at that price. Because now the original price buys only a minimum wage skillset.

If minimum wage were raised (further) I'd sure as hell be upping my prices. That's how money works. It's supply and demand.

[Zikoris]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

I can't speak to Canada's issues. But in the U.S., the real minimum wage value is the lowest it's been since around 1945. I think a lot of people fool themselves into this line of thinking because on the surface, it sounds reasonable / like "common sense". But there's no credible evidence any of this is true [1]. This point of view just supply-side economics, which isn't taken seriously in the contemporary field of economics. Make no mistake, if employers could replace employees with automation today and save $0.01, they would. If a job hasn't been replaced by automation yet, it's probably because they couldn't. And if you think a relatively small increase in labor expense is the difference between automation and not, then that job would be gone within a year or two anyway, as technology prices plummet.

[1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x

I agree that the jobs will likely be gone within a few years. I think the issue is that we as a society have done dick all to solve the problem, so doing things to "hasten the end" will end up screwing over the low wage workers more in a sense, because it will put them out of work before we've had a chance to find a solution.

Though to be fair, it's likely the powers that be will just continue to twiddle their thumbs and pretend people with an IQ of 85 are totally capable of learning to code, and everything will crash and burn regardless.

[Metalcat]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

For sure there are new jobs created now, but the issue is that virtually none of the jobs being created are things within the ability level of a low IQ person, and most of the jobs being eliminated are those jobs. Basically, I think we as a society have to figure out how to deal with the fact that a growing percentage of our population will be literally incapable of doing any job that exists, and that will happen very soon.

I have no idea what the solution is. I imagine UBI would help to an extent, but it wouldn't replace the feeling of purpose a lot of people get from working.

The theory is that it would actually free up exactly those people to do more meaningful work in society.

There are no people who don't have something of value to offer the world, but there are many who can't make a living with what it is they have to offer.

One of the idealistic parts of UBI is that people who don't have a place in the corporate landscape can have the freedom to contribute in other ways.

This is the same way there's such an enormous wealth of amazing art that comes out of places like Iqaluit where there are so few jobs, but so, so many art grants.

That's not the main argument for UBI though, the main argument is that it's overall much cheaper.

[marty998]

Re: minimum wage raise in Canada and automation

I repeat though, Canada had a nation wide labour shortage before covid hit. It was getting to critical levels with no easy solution in sight. That was driving automation as well according to the experts at the federal employment services department, who are freaking the fuck out about this.

That said, there are no simple solutions. The system is always squeezing and always looking for ways to eek out the tiniest bits of profit.

According to proponents of the Two-Income Trap, one of the worst things that ever happened for middle class families was actually women joining the workforce. Suddenly most households had a whole extra income, so the market responded to dispose of the newfound cash and everything developed a new equilibrium that actually left the middle class far worse off despite working double the hours on average.

Everyone should have ended up rich, but they didn't.

Raising minimum wage mitigates some issues, but has domino effects all through the system. As does raising or lowering taxes. Adding or removing social services, etc, etc, etc.

It's also remarkably difficult to predict the downstream effects of various economic forces and changes.

People constantly spout of their ideas of what would be a "solution" and I just have to laugh. Whatever solution one could generate, it's not a static system, some new force will arise to capitalize on it.

The Australian experience is that it has also make it incredibly difficult for singles and single income earners to afford to buy property.

The vast majority of the population need to be coupled up to have any hope of owning the roof over their head.

[marty998]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

For sure there are new jobs created now, but the issue is that virtually none of the jobs being created are things within the ability level of a low IQ person, and most of the jobs being eliminated are those jobs. Basically, I think we as a society have to figure out how to deal with the fact that a growing percentage of our population will be literally incapable of doing any job that exists, and that will happen very soon.

I have no idea what the solution is. I imagine UBI would help to an extent, but it wouldn't replace the feeling of purpose a lot of people get from working.

The theory is that it would actually free up exactly those people to do more meaningful work in society.

There are no people who don't have something of value to offer the world, but there are many who can't make a living with what it is they have to offer.

One of the idealistic parts of UBI is that people who don't have a place in the corporate landscape can have the freedom to contribute in other ways.

This is the same way there's such an enormous wealth of amazing art that comes out of places like Iqaluit where there are so few jobs, but so, so many art grants.

That's not the main argument for UBI though, the main argument is that it's overall much cheaper.

A significant increase in volunteer / community type "work" would be an expected outcome too.

[bacchi]

That assumes that if farm worker wages go up 47% everyone else won't want their wage to go up 47%.

If Bob used to get paid $10/hour and now earns $14.70/hour why shouldn't Steph who used to get paid $20/hour now want to earn $29.40/hour? Why wouldn't Joe who used to get paid $200/hour now want to earn $294.00/hour?

Labour is a fungible commodity and it kinda is arbitrary to say that you're going to raise A's wages without doing anything about B, C, D, E, F's wages...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Everyone always wants to be paid more money. Other people's pay changing has no affect on that. Also: it's really sad to me how many people have this crabs-in-a-barrel mentality.

Of course other people's changing pay affects what I think my own labour is worth.  In fact, it directly affects what my own labour is objectively worth. If you doubled minimum wage then someone who was previously on 2x min wage is no longer going to be happy with that price and is no longer going to be employable at that price. Because now the original price buys only a minimum wage skillset.

If minimum wage were raised (further) I'd sure as hell be upping my prices. That's how money works. It's supply and demand.

The NatGeo article explains this. If paying $22 more/year for fruits and veggies raises picker wages 47%, that in now way means that everyone else needs a 47% raise in income as well.

It's based on math. Because the pickers make so little, their increase reflects little on what someone making $100k loses in purchasing power.

22/100,000 = .022%

This is also seen in reality. When Seattle started raising their minimum wage, software developers didn't see an 18% increase from 2015 to 2016 when the minimum wage was increased from $11 to $13.

[the_gastropod]

I agree that the jobs will likely be gone within a few years. I think the issue is that we as a society have done dick all to solve the problem, so doing things to "hasten the end" will end up screwing over the low wage workers more in a sense, because it will put them out of work before we've had a chance to find a solution.

Though to be fair, it's likely the powers that be will just continue to twiddle their thumbs and pretend people with an IQ of 85 are totally capable of learning to code, and everything will crash and burn regardless.

Yeeep. I think we agree there. In the end, I imagine a UBI-esque thing is inevitable. But it feels very far away from that being politically feasible. The whole "you must labor to deserve to live" notion has some deep roots. You even see people in this thread arguing that if that labor isn't sufficiently difficult, the worker doesn't deserve a living-wage. Just despicable, imo..

[JGS1980]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Lets remember our history folks. Not too long ago coal mines were incensed that federal law insisted that they COULD NOT employ 12 year olds at below market rates to do back breaking (and lung destroying) work. Business interests NEVER want more regulation, lives be damned.

Minimum wage laws were developed in the first place because of the acknowledgement that many business owners would only pay "what the market could bear", even if it led to poverty, depravation, and starvation. Next man up!

I'd advise all the free market Scrooges here on this thread to pick up Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" and have a nice read by the warm fire this holiday week... just be attuned to those chains as you try to rest overnight.

JGS

[Metalcat]

I agree that the jobs will likely be gone within a few years. I think the issue is that we as a society have done dick all to solve the problem, so doing things to "hasten the end" will end up screwing over the low wage workers more in a sense, because it will put them out of work before we've had a chance to find a solution.

Though to be fair, it's likely the powers that be will just continue to twiddle their thumbs and pretend people with an IQ of 85 are totally capable of learning to code, and everything will crash and burn regardless.

Yeeep. I think we agree there. In the end, I imagine a UBI-esque thing is inevitable. But it feels very far away from that being politically feasible. The whole "you must labor to deserve to live" notion has some deep roots. You even see people in this thread arguing that if that labor isn't sufficiently difficult, the worker doesn't deserve a living-wage. Just despicable, imo..

But attitudes are changeable over time and generations.

Many younger people are so disenfranchised with the current system, they may be more than willing to explore other, dramatically different options.

Nothing is static.

[bacchi]

Minimum wage laws were developed in the first place because of the acknowledgement that many business owners would only pay "what the market could bear", even if it led to poverty, depravation, and starvation. Next man up!

"Paying a high wage has the same effect as throwing a stone into a still pond." -- Henry Ford, socialist

[Metalcat]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

For sure there are new jobs created now, but the issue is that virtually none of the jobs being created are things within the ability level of a low IQ person, and most of the jobs being eliminated are those jobs. Basically, I think we as a society have to figure out how to deal with the fact that a growing percentage of our population will be literally incapable of doing any job that exists, and that will happen very soon.

I have no idea what the solution is. I imagine UBI would help to an extent, but it wouldn't replace the feeling of purpose a lot of people get from working.

The theory is that it would actually free up exactly those people to do more meaningful work in society.

There are no people who don't have something of value to offer the world, but there are many who can't make a living with what it is they have to offer.

One of the idealistic parts of UBI is that people who don't have a place in the corporate landscape can have the freedom to contribute in other ways.

This is the same way there's such an enormous wealth of amazing art that comes out of places like Iqaluit where there are so few jobs, but so, so many art grants.

That's not the main argument for UBI though, the main argument is that it's overall much cheaper.

A significant increase in volunteer / community type "work" would be an expected outcome too.

In my case, I upped my posting frequency in this forum ;)

[Cranky]

Right, so therefore it's not right (as the other poster said) to categorically say that low paid jobs are way, way harder. Because I suspect on the whole they're not.

If there's a really easy job out there that pays a huge amount of money and doesn't take a lot of skill - then I'm happy to have it. I've been looking around and there aren't many. Maybe president of the united states is one. Haha.

Stock broker. You don't have to be any good at it and you still get paid a lot of money.

Real estate agent is another. No degree required and massive commissions for very little work.

I don't know anything about being a stock broker.

I suspect real estate agents don't make much money at the end of the day unless they get to quite a senior position...and even then I suspect they don't make much money, in the scheme of things. I'll grant you the job seems pretty easy to me, based on how useless my real estate agent is, but then, I pay her a pittance.

Haha. The RE agent we used for this house has hired a licensed teacher for his kids’ learning pod. He makes plenty.

[Cranky]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

The cotton gin made slavery profitable, so that’s an interesting argument.

[bbqbonelesswing]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

The cotton gin made slavery profitable, so that’s an interesting argument.

The cotton gin made cotton more profitable. Slavery had been in existence for many millennia before the cotton gin came around...

[Metalcat]

I think we as a society are going to run into a big problem very soon, because as minimum wage increases, companies have natural motivation to automate those jobs away entirely (and the ability to do so do to tech). It's an uncomfortable reality that the minimum IQ required to work at all, like any job at all, is gradually increasing as all the low level stuff gets eliminated. There's a growing percentage of the population that is literally too unintelligent and incapable to do literally any job but the most simple stuff now. Unfortunately, we as a society seem to be more interested in ignoring this than looking for a solution, but the day self driving cars put a double digit percentage of people permanently out of work, we're going to have to figure something out.

We're already seeing this quite a bit. In my area of Canada minimum wage is about $14/hr I think, and self checkouts and ordering machines are popping up EVERYWHERE. One example - I take long-distance buses to other cities sometimes because I don't drive. That used to be through Greyhound, and each town had an actual physical office they rented or owned with employees, where you could buy a ticket in person. The main hub in Vancouver had a lot of employees to sell tickets, check tickets, etc. Now that they folded, the bus companies sell tickets strictly online, and pick you up on a curb somewhere. The only employee you'll see is the bus driver, compared to something like 20+ people before. I think it's pretty cool since I don't like human interaction very much, but there's no doubt that one day there won't even be a driver anymore.

It's an issue as old as time...see the cotton gin, etc. The free market figures it out. Can't issue government edict to propel people into prosperity; it's never worked.

The cotton gin made slavery profitable, so that’s an interesting argument.

The cotton gin made cotton more profitable. Slavery had been in existence for many millennia before the cotton gin came around...

Don't forget that slaves were fairly expensive too. Just because they weren't being paid doesn't mean that owners weren't paying for them as labour.

Slavery is much, much cheaper now.

[mathlete]

RE: increased wages = increased prices = increased wages for everyone who buys,

This only makes sense if human labor is the only input. Raising McDonalds wages by 10% doesn't increase the price of a Big Mac by 10% because grills, buns, beef, cleaning supplies, tables, napkins, etc still ostensibly cost the same.

Even if labor cost was the only consideration then increased wages still don't necessarily mean increased prices. After all, if McDonalds though the market would bear a 10% more expensive Big Mac, then why not just raise the price today? Why wait for the wage increase? It's literally free money.

[researcher1]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

[mathlete]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

The Federal minimum wage has been $7.25 for 11 years now. Has that stopped self-checkout lanes from popping up in grocery stores around the nation?

Machines are coming to automate human labor. There is nothing we can (or should) do to stop that, including and especially, continuing to devalue human time and labor.

[Metalcat]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

The Federal minimum wage has been $7.25 for 11 years now. Has that stopped self-checkout lanes from popping up in grocery stores around the nation?

Machines are coming to automate human labor. There is nothing we can (or should) do to stop that, including and especially, continuing to devalue human time and labor.

Which is part of why no one anywhere is talking about lowering minimum to combat automation.

[mm1970]

Honest Question: If we aren't going to pay workers living wages, then why should they buy into our economic system? If instead, we want a dog-eat-dog world, then what's wrong with these workers saying "screw this" and simply robbing or looting the store? They are simply demonstrating that they have superior physical attributes (Darwinism) and redefining the economic system in terms that benefit them. There is a song about this by a hip-hop group called Dead Prez called "Hell Yeah" that I found to be a really interesting take on this sort of libertarian thinking.

I mean, I think we see that.  For all the times I hear people complaining about lazy people on welfare (because it costs more to work and pay for child care, or they lose SNAP benefits) ... I don't think most complainers work through those numbers.

One of my friends was the victim of identity theft (someone stole their credit card # and then opened up more CC's while they were trying to get a mortgage).  My first thought: Get a real job you thieves!  My second thought: well, this is their real job, because it's more lucrative than other jobs.

[bbqbonelesswing]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

Those businesses only survive because everyone else is picking up the tab for workers' benefits. Who do you think pays for SNAP? We do.

I don't think anyone is advocating paying a worker more than the value they provide. For some reason you think the value they provide is $0. And you think paying someone enough to live will force grocery bills to go through the roof, despite many earlier explanations and linked articles.

This is my last reply to you because you are literally just making things up. I hope that nobody is ever unfortunate enough to have you as their employer.

[mathlete]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

The Federal minimum wage has been $7.25 for 11 years now. Has that stopped self-checkout lanes from popping up in grocery stores around the nation?

Machines are coming to automate human labor. There is nothing we can (or should) do to stop that, including and especially, continuing to devalue human time and labor.

Which is part of why no one anywhere is talking about lowering minimum to combat automation.

We don't have the conversation, but it's worth noting that, through inaction, we still do this. The Federal Minimum is now $6.01 in 2009 dollars.

[researcher1]

Even if labor cost was the only consideration then increased wages still don't necessarily mean increased prices.
After all, if McDonalds though the market would bear a 10% more expensive Big Mac, then why not just raise the price today? Why wait for the wage increase? It's literally free money.

McDonald's would absolutely raise the price today if they could!
The reason they don't is because the market won't bear such a price increase.

So if the market won't bear a price increase on food, and you force the doubling of wages for the McDonald's cashier, there are two options...
- The company goes out of business
- The cashier position goes away

[mm1970]

Personal responsibility matters, huh?

Who knew that a "massage therapist" wasn't a good career path if you want economic stability?

People only say things like this when they think they are hot stuff.

"Hot stuff" enough to know that a career in massage therapy wouldn't result in the quality of life I desired.

COVID era aside, most of the massage therapists I know are making a good living.  I've had a grand total of 2 massages in my life, but I am not the norm.  For many people I know, they are regular things.  My 65 yo neighbor is still raking it in.

[mathlete]

Those businesses only survive because everyone else is picking up the tab for workers' benefits. Who do you think pays for SNAP? We do.

I don't think anyone is advocating paying a worker more than the value they provide. For some reason you think the value they provide is $0. And you think paying someone enough to live will force grocery bills to go through the roof, despite many earlier explanations and linked articles.

Isn't this the way it should be though? It seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity to concern employers with keeping their workers off of SNAP. It should be the government's job to provide food to the needy. They're probably best equipped to do it. If you want the employer to foot the bill eventually, then hike capital gains taxes or top tax rates. I'm certainly in favor of that.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Honest Question: If we aren't going to pay workers living wages, then why should they buy into our economic system? If instead, we want a dog-eat-dog world, then what's wrong with these workers saying "screw this" and simply robbing or looting the store? They are simply demonstrating that they have superior physical attributes (Darwinism) and redefining the economic system in terms that benefit them. There is a song about this by a hip-hop group called Dead Prez called "Hell Yeah" that I found to be a really interesting take on this sort of libertarian thinking.

I mean, I think we see that.  For all the times I hear people complaining about lazy people on welfare (because it costs more to work and pay for child care, or they lose SNAP benefits) ... I don't think most complainers work through those numbers.

One of my friends was the victim of identity theft (someone stole their credit card # and then opened up more CC's while they were trying to get a mortgage).  My first thought: Get a real job you thieves!  My second thought: well, this is their real job, because it's more lucrative than other jobs.

True. When you listen to the lyrics of "Hell Yeah", it makes complete sense why they would end up doing illegal things to get ahead. If we are going to remove our moral obligations to one another, then, of course, they are going to do what they feel is necessary without compunctions. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. They learn it from the way others behave toward them and then decide to put themselves first.

[Metalcat]

Even if labor cost was the only consideration then increased wages still don't necessarily mean increased prices.
After all, if McDonalds though the market would bear a 10% more expensive Big Mac, then why not just raise the price today? Why wait for the wage increase? It's literally free money.

McDonald's would absolutely raise the price today if they could!
The reason they don't is because the market won't bear such a price increase.

So if the market won't bear a price increase on food, and you force the doubling of wages for the McDonald's cashier, there are two options...
- The company goes out of business
- The cashier position goes away

And some other industry rises up in its place and the world keeps spinning, and maybe people eat less garbage food.

Who knows what the downstream would be.

[Zikoris]

Any business that can only survive because they pay FULL TIME staff a wage that does not allow them to survive without Federal/State/Municipal subsidization is a business that SHOULD NOT SURVIVE. Lets call it Free-Market-Business Darwinism, since the business owners like to pin this "survival of the fittest" shite on all their workers.

Most businesses WILL survive, but those no-skill jobs will NOT.

If businesses are forced to pay grocery baggers or McDonald's cashiers more than the value they provide, then those positions will disappear.

Customers would rather bag their own groceries or use an ordering kiosk, than see their grocery/food bills increase substantially.

Interestingly, these days there's also the factor of a growing number of people who prefer the automated options, regardless of price. It seems to be heavily divided by age. People like my step-mom completely refuse to use self-checkouts at all. People like me actively want to avoid dealing with a person, and will always take the machine option. Apparently Amazon has made some fully automatic grocery stores where your basket can sense what's in it or something (not a techy, I have no clue how it works), and you just grab stuff and leave, getting billed automatically. I think that must also be a factor in companies trying to automate more - there's definitely a lot of demand for it.

It's interesting to me how in the US employees bagging your groceries seems to be so common. I feel like in Canada they mostly eliminated that a long time ago, not by replacing it with anything, but it happened around the same time they started making you pay for bags, which makes people very particular about how they're packed.

[mathlete]

Even if labor cost was the only consideration then increased wages still don't necessarily mean increased prices.
After all, if McDonalds though the market would bear a 10% more expensive Big Mac, then why not just raise the price today? Why wait for the wage increase? It's literally free money.

McDonald's would absolutely raise the price today if they could!
The reason they don't is because the market won't bear such a price increase.

So if the market won't bear a price increase on food, and you force the doubling of wages for the McDonald's cashier, there are two options...
- The company goes out of business
- The cashier position goes away

Or they could simply... make less money. The net earnings of an average McDonalds franchise is about $150K. If wage increases cut into profits such that it's not worth it, perhaps MCD corporate, which has net earnings of $6bn, could consider cutting franchise fees.

I'm not even necessarily in favor of minimum wage increases. I'd much rather see a huge expansion of our safety net, including universal healthcare, and some form of universal post-secondary education. But I'm seeing a lot of bad arguments against MW increases.

[mathlete]

Also worth noting, the Federal minimum has been stuck at the same value for 11 years and yet;



devaluing human time and labor to keep people (instead of machines) from doing menial tasks is bad.

[Tigerpine]

The fastest way to remove the most people from the paycheck-to-paycheck list would be to insist on a minimum wage that covered a decent living.   Most of the working poor live paycheck to paycheck because they are paid poverty wages, not a decent living.

This minimum wage argument makes absolutely no sense!

Being a cashier at McDonalds, or a dishwasher at Applebee's, are NOT careers that should provide a living wage.
Why are we expecting these types of menial, no-skill jobs to provide a "decent living"?

It would be great if every grocery-bagger in the country could make $50K/year, but it ain't happening.
Either the grocery store goes out of business, a gallon of milk would cost $15, or the bagger job is eliminated (replaced with self-checkout).

So in other-words you think that adults should not be working these jobs and should have jobs that are a career?

I think a large contributor is the slow lifestyle creep that society as a whole has experienced.  All the the following things, good, bad, or indifferent, come at a cost that past generations didn't have to pay.  This list goes back a ways, but it shows how these things build over time.

Video games
Cable TV
Internet
Practically every family owning a midsize/large pet (when I was a kid, people with cats/dogs were in the minority)
Specialty coffee
Cell phones
Snack food
Highly processed food
Eating out on a regular basis
Intercontinental travel/vacations
Mobile phones
Gender reveal parties
"Disposable" clothing
ATM fees
So much disposable decor for various holidays.  Disposable is the key word
Computer
TV
VCR/DVD/Blu-Ray/etc.
Branded merchandise (for example "Star Wars" shoes.  Yeah, I know someone who has them)

Things that would be lifestyle creep in history was reversed:
Living in affordable housing near work.
One parent staying home to look after the kids.

As for the gender reveal party, is that in essence any different from a baby shower?
Is a TV/DVD any different then a radio/phonograph?

Nope, the gender reveal is no different to me than a baby shower.  The TV/DVD is also similar to the radio/phonograph.  Oddly enough, I had considered adding your examples to my list, but I had to end it somewhere.

The point is that people today spend money on many things that previous generations didn't or couldn't because it wasn't available to them.  That means that one hand, people have a lot more ways to not spend money, similar to the stereotypical FIRE-type person.  That comes with a certain tradeoff that not everyone is willing to make.  What people spend their money on is their own business, but there are now many things that are so ingrained as "normal" that people spend money without even thinking about it.  Or people sign up for debt because "everyone has debt".  "Everyone has a car payment."  Look at all the streaming services.  I had a conversation with a coworker yesterday about them, and his assumption was essentially that having a certain amount of (streaming) entertainment was as normal and natural as breathing air.  But that costs money.

And that ties into the argument that some people are making that you can give people a certain amount of money, but you can't  control how they spend it.

I'm not arguing extreme cases, but if the average person really understood how much control they have on their spending, they could be in much better shape financially.  But they don't, because it's all they know and feels as natural as breathing to them.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Also worth noting, the Federal minimum has been stuck at the same value for 11 years and yet;



devaluing human time and labor to keep people (instead of machines) from doing menial tasks is bad.

I'm annoyed by how some people basically say "Agree to be a slave or we'll make you starve" and they think they are virtuous for saying that.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

RE: increased wages = increased prices = increased wages for everyone who buys,

This only makes sense if human labor is the only input. Raising McDonalds wages by 10% doesn't increase the price of a Big Mac by 10% because grills, buns, beef, cleaning supplies, tables, napkins, etc still ostensibly cost the same.

Even if labor cost was the only consideration then increased wages still don't necessarily mean increased prices. After all, if McDonalds though the market would bear a 10% more expensive Big Mac, then why not just raise the price today? Why wait for the wage increase? It's literally free money.

If you raise McDonald's wages by 10% then shouldn't every other business raise wages by 10% and thus the cost of all goods and services does raise 10% which then justifies the burger price being raised 10%.

Sure, in the real world it doesn't exactly work like this. A legislated minimum wage hike of 20% (at $15/hour) might only translate to a 10% increase at $30/hour and a 5% increase at $50/hour because of how wage increases go up the chain. But I'm pretty unsold on that idea because all it does is it uses an inflationary concept (raising wages) to redistribute purchasing power.

I'd like purchasing power to be as tied to the free market as possible. But I'd make up for this by expanding the social safety net so that no one goes hungry or without shelter or without books.

Giving everyone a flat safety net costs less in the long run than using inflationary policy/minimum wages to guarantee the same safety net.  For one, it's harder to 'waste' a service provided to you than it is to waste (and then require duplication of) money provided to you for that service. Secondly, if you already have a standard of living higher than the basic safety net (either due to wages or savings), the government money isn't being wasted providing "extra" purchasing power to you; whereas under a UBI, gov't money is being wasted funnelled to middle class people who don't strictly need it. Ergo, more purchasing power distortion.

So I much prefer UBS (universal basic services) not UBI. It's cheaper.

[Tigerpine]

The fastest way to remove the most people from the paycheck-to-paycheck list would be to insist on a minimum wage that covered a decent living.   Most of the working poor live paycheck to paycheck because they are paid poverty wages, not a decent living.

This minimum wage argument makes absolutely no sense!

Being a cashier at McDonalds, or a dishwasher at Applebee's, are NOT careers that should provide a living wage.
Why are we expecting these types of menial, no-skill jobs to provide a "decent living"?

It would be great if every grocery-bagger in the country could make $50K/year, but it ain't happening.
Either the grocery store goes out of business, a gallon of milk would cost $15, or the bagger job is eliminated (replaced with self-checkout).

That argument makes no sense to me.

"We acknowledge that this job needs to be done, but we think the people who do it should have to suffer and not earn enough to make a living."

Eye. Roll.

Acknowledging that a job needs to be done is not the same as saying that a person should make a career of it, though.

Not everyone is going to have a "career".  Lots will be happy to have a "job".

Ontario has a lower minimum wage for teenagers working part-time or summer jobs.  Minimum wage laws can be adjusted, it doesn't have to be one size fits all.

I wanted to be sure to give a callout to RetiredAt63.  My mind is apparently too small to have even considered that, even though I was already vaguely aware that even in the US, minimum wage is not one size fits all.