Discussion About Raising Minimum Wage to $15/hr

[Trip]

Hi all,

I had a conversation all morning with a friend over GoogleTalk about an article on CNBC today.  I'd like to get the thoughts of you mustachians on our conversation below.  Anything you'd like to add?  Were either of us missing some key information?  Any other comments?  Be prepared.  It's pretty long.

TripWest: Thoughts?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101249053
ActivistFriend: we've been working with them to do this at CCC, we've been giving them support for a couple months now
we will be entering this fight next year officially too
personally, I would like to see bigger fixes on a macro scale, but this does have merit
TripWest: Well good luck. I think this risks far more problems than it has a chance of fixing
ActivistFriend: my biggest fear is inflation honestly
but I'm all for giving Americans at the bottom enough to thrive
the minimum wage is not my favorite device, but it may be a means to start getting us to fix some of the bigger problems
if we could get families supported by a combined $30/hour 80 hours a week (combined). Thats something you at least have a chance to live off of. But if you get backdoored by inflation, its all for nought
TripWest: Umm...you do realize that the combined wage you just listed is equivalent to over $120,000 per year...?
I just wanted to make sure you are clear on the number that you just provided is what you are meaning to say. $30/hr * $80 hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr = $124,800/yr
* 80 hrs/wk
Or did you mean half that? $15/hr * 80 hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr = $62,400
I would like the clarity of which number you are looking at before I begin my rebuttle
Sent at 9:58 AM on Thursday
TripWest: And can we agree on the following definition of poverty?
Poverty - the state of not having enough money to take care of basic needs such as food, clothing, and housing
Sent at 10:07 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: sorry, i had to take a call
TripWest: No worries
ActivistFriend: okay, I was doing the 15*80=62400 math
that is for a family of two
but could support 1-2 kids if they were there in my opinion
(and of course we both know fast food workers don't get holidays or benefits so its probably more like 50-51 weeks of work which deflates the number slightly
)
TripWest: Okay. Let's use 50. That comes out to $60,000 per year. Are there any other constraints you would like to throw in?
Sent at 10:18 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: no, thats what we can use as a baseline
TripWest: Perfect. Well then before we discuss whether or not unskilled jobs should be able to support a family of 2/4/etc in the first place, I would like to show that a family of 4 needs nowhere near that much to live above the poverty line.
Sent at 10:29 AM on Thursday
TripWest: Food – $372 / month. $1 per meal per person. Assumes 4 people 3 meals per person and 31 days in a month

Housing – 1 Bedroom Median US inner city = $950/month

Utilities – Median utility price in US = $159.38 / month. That median number is likely skewed upwards because Americans are very complainy about temperature.

Internet – Median Internet bill in US = $45 / month. Internet means phone bills are moot because one can get a number online for free and use as a landline. Learning opportunities are now available as well. While not all new jobs will be able to be learned onlilne for free, being at the poverty line, it is remarkable that they will still have options to climb out.

Clothing – Poverty line shouldn’t need many new clothes. $240/yr is more than twice what I spend on clothes at retail prices working in a “professional” setting, so I’m being generous here considering Thrift Shops/Goodwill/Consignment stores should be far less. $20 / month
I feel this is being more than generous for somebody at the poverty line considering that food bill could be chopped in half if they were to live on beans and rice. They have internet access and utilities. All of which were not covered in the formal definition given
That being said. This comes to a grand total of $18, 564 / yr. Or $9.282 / hr at 50 wks per year and 40 hour weeks.
Sent at 10:38 AM on Thursday
TripWest: Let's make some more assumptions for this family of 4 (which also I would consider having the children in the first place to be a luxury that should not truly be considered by those at the poverty line, but let's make it work using those numbers above)
Sent at 10:40 AM on Thursday
TripWest: Assuming the average childcare bill comes to $1000 per month per child. At 2 children, this is just not doable for this family. The parents will not be able to work the same hours in order to save on childcare. The sacrifices we make for kids lol. So one parent working at $7.25 working 8 hours 5 days per week for 50 weeks would bring in $14,500 per year. If the other parent works the same minimum wage $7.25 the other 2 days each week for 50 weeks they would bring in $5,075 per year. Adding the two together we get to $19, 575 per year. This is 5.446% more than the annual amount needed for the family of 4, adding in even more of a buffer from the already conservative numbers above.
Sent at 10:45 AM on Thursday
TripWest: So by my math, we were able to support a family of 4 above the poverty line, with some extras thrown in to make sure they can move up, both parents have 2 weeks of no work factored in, with another $84.25 / month of flexible money, all while the parents are making the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr and a combined 54 hours / week
Is it pretty? No, but I think it's more than generous for the poverty line family of 4.
Sorry. That was really long and I got into a train of thought rant lol. Anyways. Thoughts?
ActivistFriend: it is well put together
but I know you'll be shocked when I say I don't agree lol
TripWest: Lol really? I had no idea you wouldn't
ActivistFriend: okay, so there are a few things that we have to put into this equation and then we can argue over some other parts that are optional
TripWest: Let me know when your finished with the necessities so I have a chance to discuss those before the optionals
Sent at 10:52 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: the biggest thing that I can think of that would greatly elevate the number (particularly for a family of 4) would be medical costs. If we believe that everyone should be maintaining their health and monitoring it that requires two trips to the dentist a year per person, it requires probably at least one trip per year per person for a minor illness, and then you have to pay for prescriptions as well. God forbid, you have an medium to major accident and need to stay in the hospital for a night or have a serious procedure
I would also add, though this is negotiable that a dollar per meal might not lend itself to healthy eating, but i digress.
the next big thing I can think of is transportation
if you have two working adults they need to get to work
if you have access to public transportation that really takes out a lot of the big cost but if you live in the suburbs or a rural area you are probably going to need a car
to give you an idea, for the DC metro I pay $1140/year to go to work only via metro
so I would say thats around the cheapest you would get, if you had a car you need insurance of course too. If you have kids you have to find a way to get them to school, but maybe they can ride the bus
also included in that is any kind of regular activity that people do, we aren't just drones, people visit relatives, friends, and attend functions. This is not a huge cost, but I think would still get into 4 digits especially for a family of 4
I think i'll stop there before I start to get into the optional stuff
TripWest: Alright. Give me a second and I will cover them in order
Sent at 11:01 AM on Thursday
TripWest: Intro: I think there are a lot of things here that are add-ons that were not included in our original definition of "poverty"

1. I disagree completely that dental checkups are a necessity. People got by for thousands of years without them. Definitely in the optional category in my opinion.

2. 1 minor injury per person per year is probably an exaggeration of what we need. Americans go to the doctor far far far too often and for stupid shit that the doctors would like to tell us to just go home, sleep it off, and pump water because that's really the best thing. God damn AMA

3. Prescriptions are unnecessary 99% of the time. Home remedies have been used for thousands of years as well.

4. A dollar per meal is more than enough for healthy living as long as people are willing to plan. See link below. Also, on purely beans, rice, and a little bit of banana and calcium source every once in a while has everything needed for the body to remain healthy. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/29/killing-your-1000-grocery-bill/

5. How far do you commute? I'd argue that public transportation and cars are a luxury as well. People have been riding bicycles for a long time. It is the most fuel efficient form of transportation, and gets the people exercising to remain healthy. People bicycle in northern europe in much colder winters than we get anywhere here too, so winter is not a real excuse.

6. Kids getting to school. See bicycle above if outside of bus zone. Add on a trailer for younger kids.

7. If you disagree with 5 and 6, remember that one of the parents is only working 2 days a week to prevent the need for childcare. The number of work hours can be greatly expanded if the kids are in school

8. And no offense, but the family, activities, etc are also luxuries. We all need to work our asses of from time to time, and the schedule i've given them still provides many more options considering it's only a combined 54 hours per week

Conclusion: I disagree with your assumption that any of these are "necessities", however, I would like to hear your rebuttals as I am willing to waiver on some (not all) depending on the reasons behind.
Sent at 11:20 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: well i didn't think we would see eye to eye on these, but i think we are moving into quality of life, you can do as you say but is that what we want people to be doing? I would argue that we need to give people enough to thrive. We cannot pretend that having extra money to spend on "luxuries" doesn't help people do better in the long run. Kids need to play football, be members of clubs, have books and entertainment. Adults need to have distractions or extra money to invest or to save for a rainy day etc. All I'm saying is that in terms of cutting down and looking at bare numbers I do agree with you but there is a lot more on the table too. Its about physical, mental, and emotional development. For kids especially, but also very much for adults.
Sent at 11:31 AM on Thursday
TripWest: We're also talking about the poverty line. Not middle class
ActivistFriend: we dont want people to be stuck in a single strata, we want to give even a fast food worker the ability to thrive and be something more. Given that education among the impoverished is low, we might have to give people more than they perhaps rightly deserve to allow them to make mistakes. We can't all be rigid economists all the time, people aren't like that. They have strengths and weaknesses, vices and successes.
TripWest: Football in the park = Free. Books at the library = Free
Online entertainment, videos, etc. = Included in the internet bill already accounted for
ActivistFriend: But I guess my point is we need to not just keep people at the poverty line but try to give them a fair shake in elevation
TripWest: There are tons and tons of examples of businesses started on less than $100 dollars and in people's homes. The people in our example aren't working crazy hours. Hell, one is only working a 40% work week. There are online courses that can be taken in the time not spent working. Again, is it easy? No, but is it really expected that a person at the poverty line will have an easy time moving to upper-middle class?
Sent at 11:36 AM on Thursday
TripWest: There's also a lot of flexibility in the budget that I've offered.
1. That food bill could be cut in half if needed.
2. Utilities can be cut $100/month if they are willing to wear more clothes and blankets inside in the winter, and live without AC in the summer.
3. Internet likely could be cut down if needed
4. I've already factored in over a 5% safety margin not including 1-3
And all of this doesn't even mention the fact that they decided to have 2 kids while being at the poverty line to begin with
My point is that there is flexibility there and opportunity there for the people to work their way up. Everybody has to make some sacrifices to move up. It's not expected that we'll all automatically move up some day
Sent at 11:41 AM on Thursday
TripWest: On a side note. I greatly appreciate these kinds of conversations with you. I've been keeping a record of this one, because I feel it's great dialogue
ActivistFriend: I agree with your last statement! lol
Sent at 11:47 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: ultimately what we are coming down to, tell me if I'm wrong, is just a matter of philosophy. I don't overly dispute your numbers, indeed, I think they reflect why some people can escape poverty. However,
Sent at 11:50 AM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: I do think that we need to give people better access to upward means of mobility. Never forget that those who are truly at the poverty line have almost every single disadvantage. They don't tend to have received any where close to an average education, they have very little support from their community, family situations vary...but there are more broken families and lack of care from families below the poverty line. Crime is a constant in almost every families lives, whether it is being a victim, an innocent bystander, or the allure of becoming a part of being a criminal. Health conditions are rarely on par with standards and can lead to increased sickness and health problems. In essence, there is really nothing for these people to cling to, they have no generational wealth, no support structures, no assets or resources to draw from, and (you'll love this one lol) usually no hope. The lack of hope breeds complacency and apathy is unfortunately socially contagious.
Finally, though I'll be curious to see your reaction, I truly, truly think that race should be thrown into this equation. Being non-white is a disadvantage in a large number of scenarios and unfortunately, the majority of people at the poverty line or below are non-white. Not necessarily a defining disadvantage but one more on the stack
These natural, statistical, and social disadvantages are the reason why I advocate for giving people a greater amount of leeway and advocate for giving them the most universal way that we know to elevate them, money.
Sent at 12:00 PM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: I will nuance myself (though I know you know I think this Lol) with this. If we could have a minimum wage like we read about that started all this, I would advocate for lessening safety nets down the road as we elevate our poor into more productive and included members of our society. We don't want to foster these people in poverty, we simply want to bump them beyond having their life being ruined/altered before they ever get a chance to really change it
lol I'll stop now
Sent at 12:03 PM on Thursday
TripWest: Really we are no longer talking about a living wage. You're talking about a bunch of different issues of our society.

Ultimately the issue here is not about how much money these people are making, but education. Fix education, and a lot of the rest will work itself out. My ultimate point of disagreement is this statement,
"These natural, statistical, and social disadvantages are the reason why I advocate for giving people a greater amount of leeway and advocate for giving them the most universal way that we know to elevate them, money."
Throwing money into a fire doesn't make any sense to me, but I guess that's why I'm not a liberal ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist). But seriously. Giving a tool to somebody who doesn't understand how to use it, does them no good. Giving them more of that tool doesn't help either. The only real way is to educate them on how the tool can be used. I repeat, Fix the education system to teach skills that are actually useful and you fix many of the problems.
ActivistFriend: on the education we agree completely
however, how do you give your kids a better quality of education when you don't have money?? Educational monies are based primarily on property taxes and so if I don't give them access to more money how will we ever get there children a better education?
Sent at 12:11 PM on Thursday
TripWest: I'm all for taking money away from about a million other governmental agencies/programs/departments in order to pump more money into fixing the education system. Giving more money to the parents of kids won't fix the education issue
ActivistFriend: I don't particularly want to throw money at them, but people really resist me coming in to their house and telling me how to live their lives...
its the best resource I have that still gives them the freedom that is their innate right
and you know I'd love to slash budgets to pump more money into education but that's a monumental change beyond $15 minimum wage
TripWest: But that $15 minimum wage doesn't solve anything is my point
ActivistFriend: it does if it allows people to live in better areas and raise property values in the neighborhood because kids will receive more money per student on their education
TripWest: People have the innate right to have the tools provided to them to stay at the poverty line and the tools available to move up. Whether they use them ultimately comes to them. Fix the education and maybe they'll start using the tools they have better
ActivistFriend: they can afford school supplies, they can afford extra activities, field trips, and other experiences that help them grow
taking scantrons, as we both know, does not facilitate higher learning
TripWest: Children are more impressionable. Take that extra money you want to give to the parents and put that directly into education then. Used especially at the "worst" schools. That would have a much larger impact than raising the minimum wage.
And yes. Scantrons are fucking stupid, Our whole education system is not based on learning things of use.
ActivistFriend: Its hard to study when you're hungry, its hard to study when you're cold, its hard to study when your father and mother aren't necessarily a presence in your life, its hard to study in a class room with 34 other students, the list goes on and on, and that's before you ever get to basic intelligence of the individual
I agree with your prior statement!!! "Take that extra money you want to give to the parents and put that directly into education then. Used especially at the "worst" schools. That would have a much larger impact than raising the minimum wage."
i truly agree with that. I just think the minimum wage is much much more attainable
education is harder than abortion to do legislation on in my opionion
TripWest: I believe in my budget above I have provided for 2000 calorie meals per day with all needed nutrients, I have provided for heating, I have provided for time with the children (see one parent is always home with the kids above)
Sent at 12:21 PM on Thursday

[Trip]

TripWest: Instead of trying to fix the formal education, take the money and do alternative education that isn't regulated as much. Like "TripWest's Free Financial Advice Center" (patent pending) ;)
ActivistFriend: "Good nutrition, particularly in the first three years of life, is important for establishing a good foundation that has implications for a child’s future physical and mental health, academic achievement, and economic productivity. Unfortunately, food insecurity is an obstacle that threatens that critical foundation. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life."
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx
TripWest: We're just coming back again to the parents not spending their money appropriately because they are undereducated on a better way to spend it
Throwing more money at them does not mean the problem will be fixed
I haven't even gone into the fact that if you raise that minimum wage, it will expedite the process at which these minimum wage jobs will become obsolete anyways
Automation is becoming cheaper and cheaper everyday. IF you double the cost of labor, automation becomes much more of a threat to the same people you're trying to help
ActivistFriend: as a small child, you don't get to choose what your parents do. If they fuck up, you get fucked up. Then when you are finally old enough to choose your habits and health are from a childhood of almost exactly the opposite of what is right. Not everyone is smart as you are to see how you can budget the money, and you had some advantages that have helped you shape your perspective. You're an incredibly smart guy naturally but I think 4 years of college and a middle class upbringing helps as well
TripWest: If the parents are the problem as we're saying then why are we putting more money into their pockets?
I agree that the children don't have the choice, so that's why I'm all for offering more opportunities to them that don't require their parents. As far as education goes, you completely disregarded my post about going more for alternative education that isn't as highly regulated. Knowing how to make a budget won't get you a job, but a penny saved is more than a penny earned as you move up the totem pole due to taxes.
If you throw more money at a parent who doesn't know any better, then there is a lot of waste there. There is no gurantee that due to the sudden influx of money that they will spend even a fraction of that money in a way that is suitable for the kid.
That is why when we discussed our "optimal" society a year ago, I was all for a form of socialism for children until the age of 18.
Sent at 12:32 PM on Thursday
ActivistFriend: i like that premise! I do think alternative education is great as well! the problem with that is its not mandatory and well, if books are any indicator...no one does that very much. But certainly we should make it available!
TripWest: Morpheus "But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."
ActivistFriend: I have to go to lunch, but here's the other thing, adults 18+ aren't going anywhere, they need help to. We have created multiple "dead" or stillborn generations based in poverty. We need to stop just helping the kids and integrate the millions of adults that could use a bump too. Think about how many people we would be writing off for the next 50 years of their lives if we just keep things status quo
but i gotta run to lunch right now, please take a look at what I have so far for an agenda
TripWest: In my opinion, we need to worry about not making mistakes with the generation we are about the shepherd in before we worry about our generation and those before us
And there is no way to force mandatory education on the adults that could use the bump
You can only give them the tools we've discussed, with as many incentives as we can, and hope they take them
Have a good lunch
Sent at 12:44 PM on Thursday

[Jamesqf]

okay, I was doing the 15*80=62400 math
that is for a family of two
but could support 1-2 kids...

And there is the problem: the idea that fast food work (outside of management) ought to be thought of as a /career that's done by adults raising families, rather than high school/college kids & other people looking for part-time work.

That provokes a number of questions.  First, if these ought-to-be part-time jobs are being grabbed by career types, what does that do to the kids looking to get a toehold in the working world?

On the other hand, it's no secret that many such jobs are held by people whose immigration status is, at best, quasi-legal.

Perhaps most important, how high does the wage have to go before it's cheaper to replace workers with robots?

[NumberCruncher]

okay, I was doing the 15*80=62400 math
that is for a family of two
but could support 1-2 kids...

And there is the problem: the idea that fast food work (outside of management) ought to be thought of as a /career that's done by adults raising families, rather than high school/college kids & other people looking for part-time work.

That provokes a number of questions.  First, if these ought-to-be part-time jobs are being grabbed by career types, what does that do to the kids looking to get a toehold in the working world?

On the other hand, it's no secret that many such jobs are held by people whose immigration status is, at best, quasi-legal.

Perhaps most important, how high does the wage have to go before it's cheaper to replace workers with robots?

Many adults do work in fast food (shiny infographic below): http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/09/12/fast-food-employees-01.png

>25% have at least one child

One would assume that they work in fast food because there are not higher paid jobs to be easily had elsewhere. Just thought I'd throw that reference out there.

I don't understand why you have more concern for kids looking at part time work for pocket change over adults trying to get by - explain?

How high is the expected illegal immigrant employment in places like fast food joints? Maybe it's regional, but I haven't been aware of high numbers of this.


Back to the OP - I do see healthcare and transportation as more of a concern. Additionally, your family is doing awesome if they can make their own schedule like that. Many entry level jobs (esp. fast food, retail) do not give that kind of flexibility at all - nearly never knowing your availability too far in advance - and making coordinating with your partner darn near impossible.

Healthcare:
You malign the ACA, but because of it, I see your hypothetical family having a much easier time getting by and getting covered by insurance. Still, the cost is not $0 for sure. You say we've gotten by for thousands of years without dental, etc, but we've gotten by for thousands of years without plenty of things we now consider pretty essential for quality of life - clean water, indoor plumbing - just because we've gotten by doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the quality of life over time. Just where we cut the line is of course always up to debate, of course.

Transportation:
With two parents working at least part time, and the costs of moving, I think it's unrealistic to think that any family could definitely live within walking/biking distance of both places of work.

[CommonCents]

It was really long so I only skimmed.  One comment - dental care we haven't had for thousands of years, but people also used to die much earlier (needing their teeth to last for a much shorter time period).   They used to lose their teeth early.  Also, poor dental care is related to poor overall health.  I would urge in your world to cover it and it's not "optional."

I agree with you a living wage is substantial below $30 (or even $15/hr).  Most here would agree I would imagine.

I'd add in that I'm on the Board of a non-profit and if we had to pay $15/hr we would hire substantially fewer employees, thus contributing to an employment issue.

[marty998]

Beat me too it, I was going to make a comment about dental care.

I would also say that it is not optional.

[jfer_rose]

Interesting discussion.

While I agree that dental care should be considered a basic need rather than optional, I think the biggest issue is assuming many minimum wage earners actually get 40 hours a week. I don't think it is safe to assume that most people working minimum wage jobs are working full time. I could be wrong on this but don't minimum wage employers actively avoid having people work 40 hours per week to avoid paying benefits? My cousin frequently posts on Facebook about her frustration with unreliable hours at her fast-food job. She would like to work full time but is  nowhere near 40 hours. And because she doesn't get the same shifts each week, it seems it would be challenging to try to juggle more than one job.

[Trip]

I agree with everyone who has posted so far.  Two things I would like to address.

1.  My friend is the one who wanted to assume the 80 combined working hours, which I did my best to make sure that number was cut substantially.  I agree that the "on-call" and even scheduled part-time worker.  While this was mentioned in the article originally sent, unfortunately, it never made it into our discussion.
2.  Dental care was one of the things that I was willing to compromise on had he presented an argument, but he didn't.  Using average dental checkup costs for 4 people adds about $30 per month (obviously this varies greatly by location)

My concern wasn't so much that I didn't want to agree with him on anything, just that this was part of my sneaky way of getting him to reconsider what is thought to be "essential"

[Jamesqf]

Many adults do work in fast food (shiny infographic below): http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/09/12/fast-food-employees-01.png

Missing point: it was not always thus, so a) why has it changed? b) how can the changes be reversed?

One would assume that they work in fast food because there are not higher paid jobs to be easily had elsewhere.

That's reasonable, ,but provokes the question of why the full-timers don't acquire skills that let them get higher-paying jobs?

I don't understand why you have more concern for kids looking at part time work for pocket change over adults trying to get by - explain?

Because it's part of a long-term process.  If kids can't get started, what happens to them?  Do they become a generation of permanently unemployed/unemployable?

[mpbaker22]

okay, I was doing the 15*80=62400 math
that is for a family of two
but could support 1-2 kids...

And there is the problem: the idea that fast food work (outside of management) ought to be thought of as a /career that's done by adults raising families, rather than high school/college kids & other people looking for part-time work.

That provokes a number of questions.  First, if these ought-to-be part-time jobs are being grabbed by career types, what does that do to the kids looking to get a toehold in the working world?

On the other hand, it's no secret that many such jobs are held by people whose immigration status is, at best, quasi-legal.

Perhaps most important, how high does the wage have to go before it's cheaper to replace workers with robots?

One thing I've seen is that McDonalds in the rural areas tend to have younger high school workers.  McDonalds in cities tend to have more adult workers.    To the other poster who commented on that, this poster was making the point that fast food OUGHT TO be for young people, and they shouldn't be for full time jobs.  Though I don't know if the poster realizes what i posted in the first sentence.

[ender]

I think this would be a self correcting problem quite quickly.

[the fixer]

Along the lines of what Jamesqf is saying, my big concern is all this talk about using a whole family as the benchmark for deciding how much everyone should make. If you just say "everyone should make enough to afford X, Y, and Z if they want" rewards people who choose (or in some cases are lucky enough) to go without those things. That extra reward just contributes to inflation which works against the law's intent of improving standard of living at the poverty line.

I think minimum wage can only work if it's restricted to "this is the absolute minimum amount of money that even the most badass need to spend to get by." To make this more efficient, one tweak I would make is to adjust minimum wage by cost of living in each area, perhaps using the same system as federal pay grades. Then, if we think people at this level of poverty should be entitled to other things like dental checkups, retirement savings, or having kids, we would need to target those things more directly than just giving everyone money (as we already do to some extent).

[NumberCruncher]

Many adults do work in fast food (shiny infographic below): http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/09/12/fast-food-employees-01.png

Missing point: it was not always thus, so a) why has it changed? b) how can the changes be reversed?

What did it use to be like? Has it changed? Interesting point by mpbaker on the rural vs urban fast food employment.


As to why don't they get more skills to get a better paying job -> in some cases a lack of education comes into play. They could then get education, but that often costs $$, and our hypothetical family doesn't have much.

[dragoncar]

I think minimum wage can only work if it's restricted to "this is the absolute minimum amount of money that even the most badass need to spend to get by." To make this more efficient, one tweak I would make is to adjust minimum wage by cost of living in each area, perhaps using the same system as federal pay grades. Then, if we think people at this level of poverty should be entitled to other things like dental checkups, retirement savings, or having kids, we would need to target those things more directly than just giving everyone money (as we already do to some extent).

Minimum wage already fits this definition (see ERE).  Assuming 40 hours per week, which I guess is one of the problems.  You'd need a minimum salary not hourly wage.

[randymarsh]

I mentioned this in a thread long ago, but I think the issue with the minimum wage is that no one seems to know what lifestyle it's supposed to provide and to whom. How many kids, if any, should be able to be supported on that income? Do you get any healthcare? Should you have Internet at your home? Should you be able to save anything? Is there any history available from the time it was first enacted explaining what it was originally intended to support?

The whole debate is just one part of a much larger shift in the economy. High paying jobs are highly specialized and often require higher education. Popular opinion has decided that the trades aren't good enough even if they provide a good income, so people aren't training for those jobs. College is so expensive and loans so easy to get, graduates expect a 50K+ job immediately and that isn't happening for most unless you're an engineer or software developer (maybe nurses?). Combine that with the fact that we live in a time where there's never been more crap to purchase and it's a recipe for trouble.

[mpbaker22]

Many adults do work in fast food (shiny infographic below): http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/09/12/fast-food-employees-01.png

Missing point: it was not always thus, so a) why has it changed? b) how can the changes be reversed?

What did it use to be like? Has it changed? Interesting point by mpbaker on the rural vs urban fast food employment.


As to why don't they get more skills to get a better paying job -> in some cases a lack of education comes into play. They could then get education, but that often costs $$, and our hypothetical family doesn't have much.

I'm not sure my point is valid, it's just something I've noticed in my own experiences living in both rural and urban areas.

[NumberCruncher]

Just saw this relevant article: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/when-you-take-taxes-into-account-the-minimum-wage-is-as-high-as-its-ever-been/


It basically looks at the after tax income -- taking things like EITC into account (but not including SNAP and non tax related programs). The real after-tax minimum wage has been going up - and peaked in 2009 for a family of 4.

[MoneyCat]

If you look back at historical examples, the US economy has always been healthiest when workers were paid good wages.  Look at the example of Henry Ford.  He paid his workers three times the going rate of other manufacturers and then his employers used their wages to buy his cars.  It basically comes down to the fact that if people don't have disposable income, they are not going to purchase products.  Over the past few decades, we've tried to handle this problem in the USA by giving everyone huge credit limits so they can put everything on credit cards, but then people couldn't repay them and defaulted and it contributed to the financial meltdown of 2008.  I think a lot of companies are expecting overseas sales to make up for the lack of sales in the USA from people who can't afford goods anymore, but then you have to deal with reduced profit margins in places like China and India where real income is still kind of low compared to the USA so people can't pay high prices for goods.

[Jamesqf]

The whole debate is just one part of a much larger shift in the economy. High paying jobs are highly specialized and often require higher education. Popular opinion has decided that the trades aren't good enough even if they provide a good income, so people aren't training for those jobs.

High-paying jobs may often require higher ed (but no always: my neighbors' kid brings in darned good money as an electric lineman), but that's pretty much beside the point, as I don't think anyone is suggesting (yet, anyway) that FF workers get paid the same starting wages as say software engineers.  But there are mid-level wage jobs available without the need for four years of college.

Now some people may not WANT to take these sorts of jobs, but is that really society's problem?

If you look back at historical examples, the US economy has always been healthiest when workers were paid good wages. 

But the workers who were, and ARE, getting paid good wages were those who were creating more value than the cost of their wages.  Ford could pay his workers higher wages because they were producing lots of cars that could still be sold profitably after covering the wage bill.  Google, IBM, Microsoft and the rest pay their engineers high wages because they produce value.  But a McDonald's burger is going to be worth only a certain maximum price, no matter what the employees are paid.

[Albert]

How much is the big McDonald's burger worth in US these days? I think it's about 13$ here.

[wepner]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-3

Unless I'm reading something wrong/ misunderstanding something (likely) you were way off.

fake edit: this says a big mac meal in Zurich is $12.50

and this asshole says it costs 17.19 for a meal...

I don't know what to believe anymore...

[BlueMR2]

If you look back at historical examples, the US economy has always been healthiest when workers were paid good wages. 

But the workers who were, and ARE, getting paid good wages were those who were creating more value than the cost of their wages.  Ford could pay his workers higher wages because they were producing lots of cars that could still be sold profitably after covering the wage bill.  Google, IBM, Microsoft and the rest pay their engineers high wages because they produce value.  But a McDonald's burger is going to be worth only a certain maximum price, no matter what the employees are paid.

That was also before robotics took off an became so cheap.  So many of the low paying jobs *can* be eliminated with robots now, but aren't because wages are low enough that it's not worthwhile.  Double the minimum wage, and now it *is* worthwhile to automate those jobs.  It's a different world today.  Technology has pushed us to a point where we're very close to having the majority of the Earth's population be essentially useless to commerce.  Don't think you're off the hook if you're a "knowledge worker" either.  Automating a lot of that isn't that terribly far away.  Cheap tech is a very desirable, but dangerous thing.  Using it without careful planning and thought is more dangerous than handing a gun to a toddler.

Personally, I'd love it if the minimum wage jumped to $15.  My wife has never made that much an hour (and she's been one of those "knowledge workers" in the banking industry for years).  We could make bank for a couple years until all those jobs are automated.  Our expenses are continuing to lower (thanks to this site), overall we'd come out as a win with more money up front followed by the job loss.

[ender]

Of course, BlueMR2, the problem with that thinking is it assumes you can simply double minimum wage and have no price changes anywhere else.

Technology has pushed us to a point where we're very close to having the majority of the Earth's population be essentially useless to commerce.  Don't think you're off the hook if you're a "knowledge worker" either

People like me are causing this problem (writing software to condense busy-work processes to be automatic/streamlined). I agree wholeheartedly with what you are getting at, the world is quickly being stratified into "people who can add value to commerce" and everyone else...

[MoneyCat]

I really don't buy the argument that raising the minimum wage would impact prices in a significant way.  Remember when Papa John was complaining that the ACA would ruin his business and independent studies showed that providing health insurance to his employees would cause the consumer price for his pizzas to increase by only 10 cents?  What would increased wages do?  Increase the price by 50 cents?  Whoop-di-doo.  Anybody who wants to eat out can just dig that out of their couch cushions.  It's not going to make or break anybody, but it will drastically improve workers' ability to make a living, which will really improve the overall economy for everybody.

I really think we are just dealing with plain and simple greed.  There are some really bad people in the world of business.

[Jamesqf]

How much is the big McDonald's burger worth in US these days? I think it's about 13$ here.

Who buys them at that price, though?  Especially when you can get a more nutritious and (to my mind, better tasting) meal at a gyro stand or street market for much less.

(I've no idea what US prices are, as I haven't been in a McDonalds or similar in years.)

But searching on 'fast food labor cost' comes back with estimates of 25-50% price increases.  Demand for FF is elastic: a business will sell fewer burgers at $5 or $6 than at $4 (otherwise they'd be charging the higher price now, and raking in the profits).  So raising wages leads to fewer jobs, even before considering the possibilities of automation.

[Albert]

How much is the big McDonald's burger worth in US these days? I think it's about 13$ here.

Who buys them at that price, though?  Especially when you can get a more nutritious and (to my mind, better tasting) meal at a gyro stand or street market for much less.

(I've no idea what US prices are, as I haven't been in a McDonalds or similar in years.)

But searching on 'fast food labor cost' comes back with estimates of 25-50% price increases.  Demand for FF is elastic: a business will sell fewer burgers at $5 or $6 than at $4 (otherwise they'd be charging the higher price now, and raking in the profits).  So raising wages leads to fewer jobs, even before considering the possibilities of automation.

I certainly don't, but the place must be making money if it still exists. I do walk past one of them occasionally so I remembered a price.

There is a reason I provided this information and it is to show that high minimum wages lead to high prices of products however those products are still sold. You can indeed eat street food or Turkish kebab for considerably less, but the price of BigMac is still below an average entry in a sit down restaurant (25-35$ in midscale establishment). By the way the current unemployment rate in Switzerland is only about 4%.

[Jamesqf]

I certainly don't, but the place must be making money if it still exists. I do walk past one of them occasionally so I remembered a price.

Could it be that McDonalds in Switzerland sells a lot to tourists, who haven't really internalized the exchange rates?  And who may be afraid of 'foreign' food sources?  If my memory's accurate, most if not all of the McDonalds I noticed were in tourist-heavy locations.  As for instance, if you walk out of the main train station in Lausanne, the first thing you see is a big McDonalds sign.  I can understand why a weary traveller whose flight is about 8 hours late, and whose luggage is on another airplane somewhere, might be tempted by the familiar.

[twbird18]

I certainly don't, but the place must be making money if it still exists. I do walk past one of them occasionally so I remembered a price.

Could it be that McDonalds in Switzerland sells a lot to tourists, who haven't really internalized the exchange rates?  And who may be afraid of 'foreign' food sources?  If my memory's accurate, most if not all of the McDonalds I noticed were in tourist-heavy locations.  As for instance, if you walk out of the main train station in Lausanne, the first thing you see is a big McDonalds sign.  I can understand why a weary traveller whose flight is about 8 hours late, and whose luggage is on another airplane somewhere, might be tempted by the familiar.

This is probably the case. When I was on deployment in the Navy, McDonald's is the first place a lot of people would go when they go on shore in a foreign country because they wanted to eat "American" food. Didn't really see a lot of locals their.

[Albert]

Some of that probably, but that's not all of it. While we don't have a lot of McDonald's compared to some other European countries let alone US, I've seen few of them in out of the way places rarely frequented by foreigners. The appeal to locals is that they stay open very long hours, even on Sundays plus the usual stuff with kids toys etc.

Besides 13$ for a BigMac while expensive is nothing special compared to normal eating out prices in Switzerland. In my town a good quality dinner for two in a proper restaurant is minimum 60$.

[daverobev]

One thing that struck me is the word 'give', for example:

ActivistFriend: I do think that we need to give people better access to upward means of mobility.

IMHO 'give' leads to entitlement. Someone will feed me, house me, clothe me... I deserve to be fed/housed/clothed, so I'll sit here and wait for that to happen.

Don't get me wrong - people who are in need should be fed/clothed/housed. But you can't just 'give' people freedom, or whatever. It has to be earned.

Minimum wage jobs have to be stepping stones. I mean - if min wage was $15, do you think all those people would save and invest that extra money? Would all the problems the poor have go away? Some would, for some people, I'm sure. Anyway.

Cheap *preventative* healthcare (including optical and dental!) should be almost forced on everyone. Thus saving on the hideously expensive 'now we have to fix your heart' stuff.

[MoneyCat]

I mean - if min wage was $15, do you think all those people would save and invest that extra money? Would all the problems the poor have go away? Some would, for some people, I'm sure. Anyway.

If poor people were paid $15/hr, they would absolutely spend that money (on food, clothing, electronic toys, etc.), which means more money for us through our investments.  Our spartan lifestyles are funded by other people's excess.  If people have no disposable income, they aren't going to be able to buy anything and that reduces our income.  For me, raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a no brainer.

[daverobev]

I mean - if min wage was $15, do you think all those people would save and invest that extra money? Would all the problems the poor have go away? Some would, for some people, I'm sure. Anyway.

If poor people were paid $15/hr, they would absolutely spend that money (on food, clothing, electronic toys, etc.), which means more money for us through our investments.  Our spartan lifestyles are funded by other people's excess.  If people have no disposable income, they aren't going to be able to buy anything and that reduces our income.  For me, raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is a no brainer.

And damn the planet (even more) with cheap plastic crap? Ugh.

[Elaine]

You should have your friend check out my recipe blog, most of my food comes in at under a dollar per serving. I didn't list the cost on the earlier entries but I have started to and will continue to do so. It's also super healthy, vegan, well balanced, and vitamin rich. The issue isn't being able to do it, it's education. Most people don't understand nutrition, just like most people don't understand money. An outreach education program could be far more effective than just throwing money at the problem. I remember an article I read about the proposed soda tax in new york, and a young mother of three was quoted as saying, "If I eat cheeseburgers and fries with my kids, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough soda”. Someone who thinks soda can cure dehydration will probably not eat any healthier with more money. In fact, there's loads of evidence that shows lower income families who cook at home eat an all around healthier diet than high income families that eat out. My point is that all these activist types want to talk about is the monetary imbalance, when it seems the much larger problem is education and awareness. 

[Elaine]

My cheap-o recipes are at http://ourqueenskitchen.wordpress.com/ if anyone is interested.  Buzzmarketing!

[dragoncar]

You should have your friend check out my recipe blog, most of my food comes in at under a dollar per serving. I didn't list the cost on the earlier entries but I have started to and will continue to do so. It's also super healthy, vegan, well balanced, and vitamin rich. The issue isn't being able to do it, it's education. Most people don't understand nutrition, just like most people don't understand money. An outreach education program could be far more effective than just throwing money at the problem. I remember an article I read about the proposed soda tax in new york, and a young mother of three was quoted as saying, "If I eat cheeseburgers and fries with my kids, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough soda”. Someone who thinks soda can cure dehydration will probably not eat any healthier with more money. In fact, there's loads of evidence that shows lower income families who cook at home eat an all around healthier diet than high income families that eat out. My point is that all these activist types want to talk about is the monetary imbalance, when it seems the much larger problem is education and awareness.

Soda can absolutely cure dehydration.  It's got electrolytes!

[Elaine]

You should have your friend check out my recipe blog, most of my food comes in at under a dollar per serving. I didn't list the cost on the earlier entries but I have started to and will continue to do so. It's also super healthy, vegan, well balanced, and vitamin rich. The issue isn't being able to do it, it's education. Most people don't understand nutrition, just like most people don't understand money. An outreach education program could be far more effective than just throwing money at the problem. I remember an article I read about the proposed soda tax in new york, and a young mother of three was quoted as saying, "If I eat cheeseburgers and fries with my kids, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough soda”. Someone who thinks soda can cure dehydration will probably not eat any healthier with more money. In fact, there's loads of evidence that shows lower income families who cook at home eat an all around healthier diet than high income families that eat out. My point is that all these activist types want to talk about is the monetary imbalance, when it seems the much larger problem is education and awareness.

Soda can absolutely cure dehydration.  It's got electrolytes!

Haha, well I guess that's true. You can also bathe in it, because it's wet!

[dragoncar]

You should have your friend check out my recipe blog, most of my food comes in at under a dollar per serving. I didn't list the cost on the earlier entries but I have started to and will continue to do so. It's also super healthy, vegan, well balanced, and vitamin rich. The issue isn't being able to do it, it's education. Most people don't understand nutrition, just like most people don't understand money. An outreach education program could be far more effective than just throwing money at the problem. I remember an article I read about the proposed soda tax in new york, and a young mother of three was quoted as saying, "If I eat cheeseburgers and fries with my kids, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough soda”. Someone who thinks soda can cure dehydration will probably not eat any healthier with more money. In fact, there's loads of evidence that shows lower income families who cook at home eat an all around healthier diet than high income families that eat out. My point is that all these activist types want to talk about is the monetary imbalance, when it seems the much larger problem is education and awareness.

Soda can absolutely cure dehydration.  It's got electrolytes!

Haha, well I guess that's true. You can also bathe in it, because it's wet!

[hybrid]

A couple of points I take issue with...

For some people close-to-minimum wage jobs are the best they will ever manage.  I think some very bright people fall into the trap that says:  I can do it = you can do it too .  Not everyone is very bright, however well motivated, and hotel rooms don't clean themselves.  Fast food doesn't make itself (yet).  Etc.  There is always going to be a range of low-skilled jobs, and there will always be a band of lower-skilled workers married to them.

The question to me becomes how much do we value work and workers in America.  If workers have no inherent value then do away with minimum wage and let the chips fall where they may (extreme #1).  On the flip side workers deserve much and more, why shouldn't everyone make at least $20 an hour (extreme #2)?

The answer lies somewhere between these two extremes.  I think conservatives have a point when they say that if minimum wage rises too fast too quickly then overall employment suffers.  I agree that $15 an hour across the board is a bit steep.  But I also think that point is used too early and too often to reflexively oppose just about any increase to the minimum wage.

My position is this.  There was a time when economic gurus claimed that a proposed national tax on gasoline would cripple the economy.  The national tax proposal petered out, but then the price of gas inconveniently rose far more than the proposed tax and lo and behold, the sky did not fall.  I feel the same for minimum wage.  The supposed detriments to raising the minimum wage a more modest amount (to, say, $10 an hour) are partially offset by the fact that the vast majority of folks who make $10 an hour spend every single dime of their paychecks in the first place.  Add to that the fact that people get used to new norms rather quickly, like gasoline that is well in excess of $3 a gallon.  Yes, it may change consumption patterns a bit but not as dramatically as some would have it.  Maybe the dollar menu becomes the dollar-fifty menu.  Maybe more folks start shopping Costco over Walmart (Costco would not be directly impacted by a $10 minimum wage, whereas Walmart surely would).  In short, just like every single minimum wage hike before, those that claim the sky will fall are usually sounding the alarm bell far too loudly.

[daverobev]

The other thing is that 'we live in a globalised world' - of course fast food and hotel rooms need local staff, but pretty much everything else (manufacturing, call centres, design) can be outsourced overseas (doesn't matter which seas here - it applies as much to the UK as the US).

Min. wage increases drive that, in the age of multinationals, and even small businesses can easily do it.

Over time, in theory, the world will run out of places to get cheap labour, and then who knows.

I'm not against min. wage, but it isn't a straight up solution. Should hard working stupid people get ~$20 an hour (or whatever), vs the CEO getting, I don't know, $1k? Of course it's fairer if the CEO only gets a certain multiple of the lowest paid. But life isn't fair.

IMHO getting shot of (in the US) the craziness where 'part time' employees miss out on a whole bunch of stuff (healthcare) is the first, and more important, step. Big companies will always work to minimise costs. Stupid laws (or clever managers?) mean loopholes.

People shouldn't slip through cracks, and be taken advantage of because they *need* a given job. (But then, I believe in universal healthcare, and not forcing people to wreck their backs because they are treated like robots at Amazon facilities...)

[Albert]

The other thing is that 'we live in a globalised world' - of course fast food and hotel rooms need local staff, but pretty much everything else (manufacturing, call centres, design) can be outsourced overseas (doesn't matter which seas here - it applies as much to the UK as the US).

I have some first hand experience with this and I can tell you it's not so easy to outsource something more elaborate than a help desk or a commodity manufacturing. People who still build new factories here and/or expand their research and development centres are not stupid as rocks.

[Luck better Skill]

A couple of points I take issue with...

For some people close-to-minimum wage jobs are the best they will ever manage.  I think some very bright people fall into the trap that says:  I can do it = you can do it too .  Not everyone is very bright, however well motivated, and hotel rooms don't clean themselves.  Fast food doesn't make itself (yet).  Etc.  There is always going to be a range of low-skilled jobs, and there will always be a band of lower-skilled workers married to them.

The question to me becomes how much do we value work and workers in America.  If workers have no inherent value then do away with minimum wage and let the chips fall where they may (extreme #1).  On the flip side workers deserve much and more, why shouldn't everyone make at least $20 an hour (extreme #2)?

The answer lies somewhere between these two extremes.  I think conservatives have a point when they say that if minimum wage rises too fast too quickly then overall employment suffers.  I agree that $15 an hour across the board is a bit steep.  But I also think that point is used too early and too often to reflexively oppose just about any increase to the minimum wage.

My position is this.  There was a time when economic gurus claimed that a proposed national tax on gasoline would cripple the economy.  The national tax proposal petered out, but then the price of gas inconveniently rose far more than the proposed tax and lo and behold, the sky did not fall.  I feel the same for minimum wage.  The supposed detriments to raising the minimum wage a more modest amount (to, say, $10 an hour) are partially offset by the fact that the vast majority of folks who make $10 an hour spend every single dime of their paychecks in the first place.  Add to that the fact that people get used to new norms rather quickly, like gasoline that is well in excess of $3 a gallon.  Yes, it may change consumption patterns a bit but not as dramatically as some would have it.  Maybe the dollar menu becomes the dollar-fifty menu.  Maybe more folks start shopping Costco over Walmart (Costco would not be directly impacted by a $10 minimum wage, whereas Walmart surely would).  In short, just like every single minimum wage hike before, those that claim the sky will fall are usually sounding the alarm bell far too loudly.

  I have to give agreement to Hybrid on this.  I don't know of a better working economic system then capitalism but there are some warts.  One being that low wage earners cannot choose to hibernate for a few decades waiting for wages to rise.  Rent and food are hard habits to kick. 
  Having used Bootstraps to pulled myself up I also realize many cannot do it.  It is not just lack of willpower it is the knowledge it can be done.  Many caught in poverty cannot get out without help.

[Elaine]

You should have your friend check out my recipe blog, most of my food comes in at under a dollar per serving. I didn't list the cost on the earlier entries but I have started to and will continue to do so. It's also super healthy, vegan, well balanced, and vitamin rich. The issue isn't being able to do it, it's education. Most people don't understand nutrition, just like most people don't understand money. An outreach education program could be far more effective than just throwing money at the problem. I remember an article I read about the proposed soda tax in new york, and a young mother of three was quoted as saying, "If I eat cheeseburgers and fries with my kids, I’m going to get dehydrated and that little cup is not enough soda”. Someone who thinks soda can cure dehydration will probably not eat any healthier with more money. In fact, there's loads of evidence that shows lower income families who cook at home eat an all around healthier diet than high income families that eat out. My point is that all these activist types want to talk about is the monetary imbalance, when it seems the much larger problem is education and awareness.

Soda can absolutely cure dehydration.  It's got electrolytes!

Haha, well I guess that's true. You can also bathe in it, because it's wet!

You win the Internet today. Everybody go home.

[daverobev]

The other thing is that 'we live in a globalised world' - of course fast food and hotel rooms need local staff, but pretty much everything else (manufacturing, call centres, design) can be outsourced overseas (doesn't matter which seas here - it applies as much to the UK as the US).

I have some first hand experience with this and I can tell you it's not so easy to outsource something more elaborate than a help desk or a commodity manufacturing. People who still build new factories here and/or expand their research and development centres are not stupid as rocks.

The people who work in those places will likely not earn minimum wage. You can do your R&D in the end market, but manufacture elsewhere.

I know, even Apple is moving some stuff back to the US, and there was a huge backlash against Indian call centres in the UK. It's not forever. But, compared to 40 or 50 years ago, there are fewer low-skilled jobs (robots), and many of those that remain have gone to other countries than the first world.

Which really does beg the question: What do all these people do? 7 billion of us, with loads of houses, infrastructure, etc, already in place, population (hopefully) becoming stable. Shorter working weeks and early retirement seem much better in a world where robots do most of the crappy work... I guess we'll make it up as we go along, as with most things.

[Jamesqf]

In short, just like every single minimum wage hike before, those that claim the sky will fall are usually sounding the alarm bell far too loudly.

But the flip side of that is that we have had minimum wage laws, and regular increases in the minimum wage, for all of my working life (and longer), but it does not seem to have materially increased the prosperity of those earning the minimum wage.

[hybrid]

In short, just like every single minimum wage hike before, those that claim the sky will fall are usually sounding the alarm bell far too loudly.

But the flip side of that is that we have had minimum wage laws, and regular increases in the minimum wage, for all of my working life (and longer), but it does not seem to have materially increased the prosperity of those earning the minimum wage.

Hence the term minimum wage.

[randymarsh]

Shorter working weeks and early retirement seem much better in a world where robots do most of the crappy work... I guess we'll make it up as we go along, as with most things.

Ha! More like the average employee works longer and/or harder at whatever job still exists. The people working shorter weeks will be the ones who created the robots. I don't think they have any plans to share that wealth.

I'm not usually one for "pie in the sky" type predictions, but I really think work is going to change dramatically over the next few decades. Software and automation is just getting so good so fast. That's one appeal of MMM for me. I'd like to make my money, be FI, and not have to worry about keeping up. Software will write itself some day!

[Jamesqf]

Hence the term minimum wage.

Don't quite follow you logic there.  Why raise the minimum if it doesn't actually have any measurable effect?  Or indeed, if the effect is to induce a chain reaction increase in all other wages & prices such that (almost*) everyone winds up right back where they started, getting more dollars that are worth less?

*Almost, because people why retired early and thought they wre going to live off their fixed-income investments will get screwed :-)

The people working shorter weeks will be the ones who created the robots. I don't think they have any plans to share that wealth.

Evidence to date - the typical work week at a tech startup, for instance - suggests that the robot creators will be the ones working their butts off.

[Trip]

My cheap-o recipes are at http://ourqueenskitchen.wordpress.com/ if anyone is interested.  Buzzmarketing!

This site is awesome!  The plug is very much appreciated and will be added into my favorites.

Soda can absolutely cure dehydration.  It's got electrolytes!

"What *are* these electrolytes? Do you even know?" --Pvt. Joe Bowers

A couple of points I take issue with...

For some people close-to-minimum wage jobs are the best they will ever manage.  I think some very bright people fall into the trap that says:  I can do it = you can do it too .  Not everyone is very bright, however well motivated, and hotel rooms don't clean themselves.  Fast food doesn't make itself (yet).  Etc.  There is always going to be a range of low-skilled jobs, and there will always be a band of lower-skilled workers married to them.

The question to me becomes how much do we value work and workers in America.  If workers have no inherent value then do away with minimum wage and let the chips fall where they may (extreme #1).  On the flip side workers deserve much and more, why shouldn't everyone make at least $20 an hour (extreme #2)?

The answer lies somewhere between these two extremes.  I think conservatives have a point when they say that if minimum wage rises too fast too quickly then overall employment suffers.  I agree that $15 an hour across the board is a bit steep.  But I also think that point is used too early and too often to reflexively oppose just about any increase to the minimum wage.

My position is this.  There was a time when economic gurus claimed that a proposed national tax on gasoline would cripple the economy.  The national tax proposal petered out, but then the price of gas inconveniently rose far more than the proposed tax and lo and behold, the sky did not fall.  I feel the same for minimum wage.  The supposed detriments to raising the minimum wage a more modest amount (to, say, $10 an hour) are partially offset by the fact that the vast majority of folks who make $10 an hour spend every single dime of their paychecks in the first place.  Add to that the fact that people get used to new norms rather quickly, like gasoline that is well in excess of $3 a gallon.  Yes, it may change consumption patterns a bit but not as dramatically as some would have it.  Maybe the dollar menu becomes the dollar-fifty menu.  Maybe more folks start shopping Costco over Walmart (Costco would not be directly impacted by a $10 minimum wage, whereas Walmart surely would).  In short, just like every single minimum wage hike before, those that claim the sky will fall are usually sounding the alarm bell far too loudly.

  I have to give agreement to Hybrid on this.  I don't know of a better working economic system then capitalism but there are some warts.  One being that low wage earners cannot choose to hibernate for a few decades waiting for wages to rise.  Rent and food are hard habits to kick. 
  Having used Bootstraps to pulled myself up I also realize many cannot do it.  It is not just lack of willpower it is the knowledge it can be done.  Many caught in poverty cannot get out without help.

I believe that we're all on the same page.  How do we get the knowledge out there though?  Do a MMM Marketing campaign and try to get it to go viral?

[randymarsh]

Evidence to date - the typical work week at a tech startup, for instance - suggests that the robot creators will be the ones working their butts off.

Isn't that temporary though? You work your ass off, hopefully make it big, and you're set for life. Kind of life big time writers. They usually continue writing. But they don't have to, they're FI. Or once you're tired of the start up scene, you can head to an established company and FIRE the MMM way.

Regardless,  highly skilled workers in certain fields will be fine...for now. They work hard and are compensated for that work. But minimum wage employees work hard too. A different type of work, but work none the less.

[LalsConstant]

What's funny is these people are asking for wages I couldn't get until I went to graduate school.  I feel for them as I have spent most of my working life with a dollar of minimum wage and I know it stinks but they are justbout of their minds on this.  I know college educated better qualified people that would be applying for my old jobs with $15 an hour pay.

Gracious, that is more than my brother gets to deal with dangerous inmates all day.