Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation

[researcher1]

I enjoy how you have ignored all of the examples I've given you explaining how skill level doesn't correlate with compensation, and your ideological world view of how people should be compensated just isn't compatible with how salaries are determined, so the entire system would have to change to accomodate your belief system about unskilled labour, which is VERY OFTEN compensated much higher than minimum wage specifically *because* it's tedious.

I don't recall your specific examples, but I don't disagree with much of what you're saying here.

I've been focused on widespread grocery/fast food type jobs, which are similar in terms of pay, effort, conditions, ect.

But there are certainly other lower-skill jobs, like digging ditches, that rightfully command higher wages.
I don't even put these jobs in the same "unskilled" category as grocery baggers, because they do require the skills of strength/stamina/endurance, and require you to work in harsh conditions.

My "ideological world view" is simply the support of a market economy.
What exactly is your beef with this?

[bacchi]

It would be nice if American workers could live the lifestyle that European workers get to enjoy. It was really eye-opening when the internet came along and we all learned that European workers had four weeks of paid vacation per year which they spent on vacation in Spain.

I don't understand this argument. I suspect it's usually made by people who have not spent significant time living with Europeans. It is extremely easy to live a lifestyle in America where you work 32 hours a week and take 6 weeks off a year like an Italian. The tradeoff that they pay is a much lower standard of living, very small apartments, staying at home into your 30s, having a very small or no car, having fewer children.

You didn't specify where the "much lower standard of living" is.

[Zikoris]

It would be nice if American workers could live the lifestyle that European workers get to enjoy. It was really eye-opening when the internet came along and we all learned that European workers had four weeks of paid vacation per year which they spent on vacation in Spain.

I don't understand this argument. I suspect it's usually made by people who have not spent significant time living with Europeans. It is extremely easy to live a lifestyle in America where you work 32 hours a week and take 6 weeks off a year like an Italian. The tradeoff that they pay is a much lower standard of living, very small apartments, staying at home into your 30s, having a very small or no car, having fewer children.

To be fair, it can be a little tricky to find jobs that let you take 6 weeks a year off, depending on the field. Most jobs I've had give you two weeks, and frown at unpaid time off. I get four weeks at my current employer, and definitely got the side-eye the year I took an extra unpaid week on top of that, though they didn't outright say no.

[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.

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

Sure. But notice that slavery had died out in Europe, in favor of paid labor. It was the cotton gin that saved slavery in America.

[Cranky]

That's not how it works.

Consumers only have a finite amount of disposable income to spend.
They don't "simply get used to paying the new going rate."
Instead, they either visit the restaurant less frequently or eliminate eating there altogether.

And guess what happens then...restaurant worker hours get cut back and/or positions eliminated.

Actually, they do!  If you were right, then Netflix would have gone out business when they raised prices.  They have more subscribers now than before they raised them.  No customer is going to tip a grocery store or a streaming service, but they probably won't even notice paying another dollar every couple of years.  More immediately, Seattle didn't lose restaurant business with the minimum wage hike.  A tech bro making $200k isn't going to start brewing his own daily coffee if it costs another dolalr.

Netflix is cheaper today than it was 20 years ago when I first subscribed.

[catprog]

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.

Which costs more money for a bureaucracy to provide?  A number of services to provide food, housing, communication, appliances etc.

For example a fridge stops working. Who has the job of approving a replacement fridge?

Or just a single payment to cover the lot.

As for the money providing 'extra' purchasing power the solution for that one is simple. Add an increased tax at the level of the UBI at the point where you think the purchasing power should be equal to the current system.

[sailinlight]

It would be nice if American workers could live the lifestyle that European workers get to enjoy. It was really eye-opening when the internet came along and we all learned that European workers had four weeks of paid vacation per year which they spent on vacation in Spain.

I don't understand this argument. I suspect it's usually made by people who have not spent significant time living with Europeans. It is extremely easy to live a lifestyle in America where you work 32 hours a week and take 6 weeks off a year like an Italian. The tradeoff that they pay is a much lower standard of living, very small apartments, staying at home into your 30s, having a very small or no car, having fewer children.

You didn't specify where the "much lower standard of living" is.

My point is, if you want to live in a small apartment, not own a car, and have fewer luxuries than the average American, then it's pretty simple to work less just like the Europeans do

[CodingHare]

My point is, if you want to live in a small apartment, not own a car, and have fewer luxuries than the average American, then it's pretty simple to work less just like the Europeans do

That doesn't quite track, in most of the US having a car is not a choice, because we are so spread out our our public transport infrastructure is so poor.  In Europe a car is less of a necessity.  Also there just aren't very many <40 hour jobs available above minimum wage, especially ones that include health insurance (which is not tied to employment in Europe*.)

* guilty of treating Europe as a monolith in this statement, obviously there is a wide range of approaches to healthcare/vehicle ownership across the EU

[Poundwise]

Or your social programs end up saving a ton of money.

That's a major possibility too, and kind of a major point of a lot of social programs, contrary to what a lot of people have been indoctrinated to think.

UBI: designed to save the government money
Housing First Initiatives: designed to save the government money
Safe Injection Sites: designer to save the government money
Supervised Drug programs where intractible addicts are actually given drugs by the state: designed to save the government money
Better social services geared at mental health crises: designed to save the government money so that expensive police aren't burdened
Reintegration programs for ex-cons: designed to save the government money by reducing strain on the justice system

And on and on and on.

Well designed social programs are supposed to lower the burden, they're not just fuzzy, feel good, SJW bullshit.

YES.

[Poundwise]

 

Everybody in that article has made poor choices that have put them in their current position. They might not be financially secure with better, more responsible decision making, but they would certainly be better off than they currently are.

I agree. But many people should not have discretion over income needed for survival, and never will. They weren't raised with the skills or goals to be thrifty, and they will never pick them up. However their poor financial skills doesn't mean they belong out on the street, hungry, or without healthcare.

It's easy to be judgmental from a place of comfort. I think my friend was an idiot to spend his Covid relief check on replica WWF championship belts, and now he has no margin going into the winter.  On the other hand, I have spent lots of money on items quite as frivolous but it hardly registers because we are comfortable (granted we also sacrificed and worked considerably to achieve our current prosperity).

None of the people in the article are homeless or hungry or without healthcare though. They all feel financial stress, but each example could make some pretty easy cuts to give themselves more breathing room too. I bet if they were truly in danger of any of those things occurring in the immediate future, they'd suddenly understand some basic financial rules like cutting excess spending. Most people have some level of self preservation instinct, even if they've never been taught about money.

The people in the article seemed to be mainly middle class, the kind of person who follows NPR.  I disagree that everybody has an effective self preservation instinct.  I have  friends both middle class and not middle class, who over their lives keep making variants of the same mistakes over again, gradually cycling downward and seemingly unable to change the way they do things. (In fact, who among us is able to learn from every mistake, never making the same type of error twice?)

I know a skilled worker whose greatest enemy is himself.  He could be making close to six figures in a couple of years if he could pull it together.  In fact he still talks about a past time of greatness when he had his own contracting business, before he blew it on drugs and fancy cars. He claims to be clean now, but he had been fired from his latest job for chronic lateness and smoking on the job. I worked my network and found him new jobs, from which he was fired for chronic lateness, no-shows, and smoking on the job.

With such a person one gets compassion fatigue.  However, that's not a reason to deny  help.  Because overall it will be more expensive for society if one doesn't.  I fought to keep my friend from getting evicted because his family is living in a decent rent controlled apartment for only $1000/month; it would have cost society way more to place them in a shelter, plus his wife would have lost her jobs. Also they have kids who will have a better chance of supporting themselves if their lives aren't disrupted by homelessness. At least he can do childcare while his wife works her three part time jobs as a health club receptionist.

The fool things that he does would make you tear your hair out, but people like him are all over the place. And before you hate on him, consider how well he's doing for a guy with ADD, who was abandoned by his drug addict mom and alcoholic dad. He may eventually get it together, but meanwhile the family has got to eat and live some place. 

Americans have a fantasy that people are rational actors, just a step away from Horatio Alger success.  So depending on your brand of politics, cash or conversely the threat of doom will enable or motivate them to better themselves. Sure, that is the case for many.  But many people can't make good decisions during at least parts of their lives.  That's how they got in the hard situations in the first place. Assuming such people don't exist is more expensive than planning for them.

TLDR; People are not always rational actors.  Nations ignore this reality at their cost.

[Metalcat]

Everybody in that article has made poor choices that have put them in their current position. They might not be financially secure with better, more responsible decision making, but they would certainly be better off than they currently are.

I agree. But many people should not have discretion over income needed for survival, and never will. They weren't raised with the skills or goals to be thrifty, and they will never pick them up. However their poor financial skills doesn't mean they belong out on the street, hungry, or without healthcare.

It's easy to be judgmental from a place of comfort. I think my friend was an idiot to spend his Covid relief check on replica WWF championship belts, and now he has no margin going into the winter.  On the other hand, I have spent lots of money on items quite as frivolous but it hardly registers because we are comfortable (granted we also sacrificed and worked considerably to achieve our current prosperity).

None of the people in the article are homeless or hungry or without healthcare though. They all feel financial stress, but each example could make some pretty easy cuts to give themselves more breathing room too. I bet if they were truly in danger of any of those things occurring in the immediate future, they'd suddenly understand some basic financial rules like cutting excess spending. Most people have some level of self preservation instinct, even if they've never been taught about money.

The people in the article seemed to be mainly middle class, the kind of person who follows NPR.  I disagree that everybody has an effective self preservation instinct.  I have  friends both middle class and not middle class, who over their lives keep making variants of the same mistakes over again, gradually cycling downward and seemingly unable to change the way they do things. (In fact, who among us is able to learn from every mistake, never making the same type of error twice?)

I know a skilled worker whose greatest enemy is himself.  He could be making close to six figures in a couple of years if he could pull it together.  In fact he still talks about a past time of greatness when he had his own contracting business, before he blew it on drugs and fancy cars. He claims to be clean now, but he had been fired from his latest job for chronic lateness and smoking on the job. I worked my network and found him new jobs, from which he was fired for chronic lateness, no-shows, and smoking on the job.

With such a person one gets compassion fatigue.  However, that's not a reason to deny  help.  Because overall it will be more expensive for society if one doesn't.  I fought to keep my friend from getting evicted because his family is living in a decent rent controlled apartment for only $1000/month; it would have cost society way more to place them in a shelter, plus his wife would have lost her jobs. Also they have kids who will have a better chance of supporting themselves if their lives aren't disrupted by homelessness. At least he can do childcare while his wife works her three part time jobs as a health club receptionist.

The fool things that he does would make you tear your hair out, but people like him are all over the place. And before you hate on him, consider how well he's doing for a guy with ADD, who was abandoned by his drug addict mom and alcoholic dad. He may eventually get it together, but meanwhile the family has got to eat and live some place. 

Americans have a fantasy that people are rational actors, just a step away from Horatio Alger success.  So depending on your brand of politics, cash or conversely the threat of doom will enable or motivate them to better themselves. Sure, that is the case for many.  But many people can't make good decisions during at least parts of their lives.  That's how they got in the hard situations in the first place. Assuming such people don't exist is more expensive than planning for them.

TLDR; People are not always rational actors.  Nations ignore this reality at their cost.

Based on my extensive exposure to both political leaders as well as senior government officials, you don't have to worry, governments don't assume that people are rational actors.

It's a foundational assumption of most policy.

[mm1970]

I'm perfectly okay with both of those options. Especially if you consider the downstream costs to society of providing terribly unhealthy food with the cheapest sourced base ingredients which together eventually cause society to have bulging waistlines, terrible gylcemic indexes, and poor long term health outcomes (which we also pay for out of the public pot).

I think it becomes a slippery slope when we start making moral judgements against the product. Someone will find most products or services reprehensible. Do we stop selling smart phones because of the addictive nature of screen time?  etc.

It's a perfectly valid choice to eat McDonalds.

Also, I'd like to add, to whomever said "people will go to burger king".  No.

I don't eat McD's anymore (and I can't eat gluten anyway), but back in the day, I was a Big Mac girl.  And no other burger joint could even come close.  It just wasn't comparable.  I'd pay the Big Mac cost whatever.

[joe189man]

how do we solve pay check to paycheck nation status?

increase the minimum wage to provide a "living wage"?
create a universal basic income for all?
broaden social safety net programs so they become standard of living programs (housing and food)?
give everyone free basic health care?
free post secondary education?

all of these programs are expensive, where will that money come from? Taxes right, who will pay the taxes, businesses and the wealthy right.  I think we are seeing the results of higher taxes in California right now, wealthy people are leaving the state and taking their companies with them to more tax friendly states. What happens when taxes are increased at a national level, do these folks leave the US? then what? I dont know and dont have the answers, but suggest we tread lightly here.

In my opinion, human nature is being neglected in the discussion and may be a big driver of what purchases people make affecting their paycheck to paycheck status, not all or even half but to say the individual is not responsible is some cases (fishing boat, closet full of lululemon pants, coach bags, PS5, $600 guitar amp, etc.) isn't true.

Yes. You tax. And you do so with the self-esteem to know that low taxes aren't the only reason why people like you. California will be just fine. And so will America if we focus on things (other than low taxes) that make America great.

You do not want to be stuck with the economy where the only thing you can do to attract business is race your taxes to the bottom. Great NPR story about this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/668790306

Yup, Tax Tax, and then Tax some more. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos won't starve to death in the meantime. Who in the hell needs 100 billion dollars anyway?

Or your social programs end up saving a ton of money.

That's a major possibility too, and kind of a major point of a lot of social programs, contrary to what a lot of people have been indoctrinated to think.

UBI: designed to save the government money
Housing First Initiatives: designed to save the government money
Safe Injection Sites: designer to save the government money
Supervised Drug programs where intractible addicts are actually given drugs by the state: designed to save the government money
Better social services geared at mental health crises: designed to save the government money so that expensive police aren't burdened
Reintegration programs for ex-cons: designed to save the government money by reducing strain on the justice system

And on and on and on.

Well designed social programs are supposed to lower the burden, they're not just fuzzy, feel good, SJW bullshit.

my overall point is that we can do any and everything to help lift up the minimum wage worker to have a living wage existence and they will likely f**k it up and get themselves into trouble financially

That's quite the generalization.

Are you saying that there is no possible societal structure that could ever possibly result in a net improvement of general well being of the public?

Cuz that's what it sounds like you're saying.
That people are hopeless so there's no point to any policy ever.

The fire movement and this blog/forum are a great example, i send blog posts to friends all the time about the shockingly simple math and the steps to achieve FIRE and I get crickets back or a change of subject. The information here can literally change the direction of a persons life, i say this, they read it and the info goes in one ear and out the other. you can bring a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

how many people do you know what smoke? drink to excess? eat to excess? don't get enough exercise?  hell the leading causes of death, heart disease followed by cancer, are the result. People know what they should do, they just don't do it.

I am not saying nothing can help, i just don't know what can

[Metalcat]

I enjoy how you have ignored all of the examples I've given you explaining how skill level doesn't correlate with compensation, and your ideological world view of how people should be compensated just isn't compatible with how salaries are determined, so the entire system would have to change to accomodate your belief system about unskilled labour, which is VERY OFTEN compensated much higher than minimum wage specifically *because* it's tedious.

I don't recall your specific examples, but I don't disagree with much of what you're saying here.

I've been focused on widespread grocery/fast food type jobs, which are similar in terms of pay, effort, conditions, ect.

But there are certainly other lower-skill jobs, like digging ditches, that rightfully command higher wages.
I don't even put these jobs in the same "unskilled" category as grocery baggers, because they do require the skills of strength/stamina/endurance, and require you to work in harsh conditions.

My "ideological world view" is simply the support of a market economy.
What exactly is your beef with this?

What you've done is cherry pick examples and then make massive generalizations about far reaching minimum wage policies.

Pay simply doesn't directly relate to skill, especially at the lower ranges of work, that's a simple and easily supported fact.

I didn't refer to highly paid low skill jobs that are brutally hard, I specifically referred to low paying jobs that are very easy, but incredibly, mind crushingly dull, like my old job making scotch tape dispensers. It was so easy, and paid much more than my far more in demand and demanding job working in a high end clothing store. That's just one personal example. I could give you dozens more from staffing these very types of roles.

You think you're giving examples of fast food and grocery bagging and that that generalizes to the entire minimum wage world, but it doesn't. Fast food restaurants don't even generalize to sit down restaurants. It's a different model.

I don't even get what you mean by your world view being "simply the support of a market economy". That might be what you hope for, but that's not your view of how the economy works and how money moves within it.

Your beliefs about how unskilled labour "should" be paid reveals this, because level of skill isn't even how pay is determined. Pay is determined by the need for retention, which is largely determined by supply and demand of staff. I've responded to you multiple times giving specific examples where I myself set staff salaries with virtually no regard for staff skill.

That's what I mean by your ideology or world view, you seem to think things do or should work a certain way when that's just not reality. They don't pay grocery baggers little because it's easy, they pay them little because they're easily replaceable. If the shifts were nights, they might have to pay more for the exact same skill level, depending on the population of people willing to work nights, like students. If it's not a college town, but a smaller community with an aging population, they'll likely have to pay a premium to lure people away from their families. Either that, or just eliminate the baggers at night.

Anyway, I laid all of this out in replies to you before, but if you aren't all that interested, then don't worry too much about it, I don't need you to believe me or agree with me.

[Luck12]

my overall point is that we can do any and everything to help lift up the minimum wage worker to have a living wage existence and they will likely f**k it up and get themselves into trouble financially

Citations needed.   Just from the #'s in the article, even a jump from < 25K income to 25-49K income decreases paycheck to paycheck living from 63% to 47%.   I doubt one could argue that there's a meaningful difference in fiscal responsibility between the two groups (based on #'s I have seen in studies of savings rates by income group).    Not saying giving people more money solves all of life's issues, but the research shows it clearly helps people since more money gives them a buffer they previously lacked.   

I think you're just trying to use any excuse to not help people which is common in people with a certain ideology.

[johndoe]

As someone who leans right, I like listening to NPR to get a different viewpoint.  But I have to say, this isn't the first time I hear their personal examples and think "that's the biggest 'tough luck' example you could get?  I thought you were going to find something to pull on my heartstrings and prove people at the 'bottom' really need more help".  If anything stories like this just give more ammo to the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" crowd.

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.

You "honestly" think libertarians support theft?  I may not know all the intricacies of libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that's like... their only rule.  You know... "don't tread on me"

[Luck12]

You "honestly" think libertarians support theft?  I may not know all the intricacies of libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that's like... their only rule.  You know... "don't tread on me"

They certainly support wage theft or at best leave it unfettered. 

[Poundwise]

The fire movement and this blog/forum are a great example, i send blog posts to friends all the time about the shockingly simple math and the steps to achieve FIRE and I get crickets back or a change of subject. The information here can literally change the direction of a persons life, i say this, they read it and the info goes in one ear and out the other. you can bring a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

how many people do you know what smoke? drink to excess? eat to excess? don't get enough exercise?  hell the leading causes of death, heart disease followed by cancer, are the result. People know what they should do, they just don't do it.

I am not saying nothing can help, i just don't know what can

I feel your pain. The pain of looking at somebody else's unhappy life from the outside, seeing what could be done to fix it, giving them the tools to fix it (even in the form of a cash grant from my own pocket), seeing them just making the same old mistakes again and again.

There's not going to be a silver bullet... we can't save everyone, but we can buy time and make things better.  That's why I'm a strong supporter of the social safety net. Keep people alive until they can figure it out, or their kids do. There's always a chance.

Also, a lot of these behaviors are the result of stress. We're not going to be able to develop a sane culture when everybody is so insecure.

One real change I'd like to see is making it easier for eligible people to access services. While it's not impossible for a middle class person to navigate the red tape, try applying for CHIP if you let your driver's license expire because you couldn't drive because you had too many unpaid tickets, you have to make two bus transfers to get to the government office, etc.

[joe189man]

my overall point is that we can do any and everything to help lift up the minimum wage worker to have a living wage existence and they will likely f**k it up and get themselves into trouble financially

Citations needed.   Just from the #'s in the article, even a jump from < 25K income to 25-49K income decreases paycheck to paycheck living from 63% to 47%.   I doubt one could argue that there's a meaningful difference in fiscal responsibility between the two groups (based on #'s I have seen in studies of savings rates by income group).    Not saying giving people more money solves all of life's issues, but the research shows it clearly helps people since more money gives them a buffer they previously lacked.   

I think you're just trying to use any excuse to not help people which is common in people with a certain ideology.

i have no citations, this isnt my field of study, just opinions from lived experience with family and friends, seen them squander opportunities repeatedly, these experiences arent equal to everyone everywhere, your mileage may vary,

That last line is just a personal attack,

[Metalcat]

my overall point is that we can do any and everything to help lift up the minimum wage worker to have a living wage existence and they will likely f**k it up and get themselves into trouble financially

Citations needed.   Just from the #'s in the article, even a jump from < 25K income to 25-49K income decreases paycheck to paycheck living from 63% to 47%.   I doubt one could argue that there's a meaningful difference in fiscal responsibility between the two groups (based on #'s I have seen in studies of savings rates by income group).    Not saying giving people more money solves all of life's issues, but the research shows it clearly helps people since more money gives them a buffer they previously lacked.   

I think you're just trying to use any excuse to not help people which is common in people with a certain ideology.

i have no citations, this isnt my field of study, just opinions from lived experience with family and friends, seen them squander opportunities repeatedly, these experiences arent equal to everyone everywhere, your mileage may vary,

That last line is just a personal attack,

The thing is, that's kind of what policy is for, to help design systems that are resilient and account for normal behaviours of the population. That's the entire point of good policy and why it is so difficult to craft, but it is possible.

The issue with the position you are taking, that people are basically hopeless and will squander everything, is that it's too expensive to be sustainable.

It's actually EXTREMELY expensive per capita to have poor people. Poverty costs a fucking fortune, it really does. The astronomical costs in terms of administrating welfare programs is, like, the smallest part as well. Where the bill starts bankrupting society is in medical costs and justice system costs. Poverty is a luxury that societies just can't afford. It's not like poor people just go off on their own to be poor and the rest of us just go on our merry way "pulling ourselves up by the bootstraps" and taking "personal responsibility" while the poor people just occupy their own quiet little hell. That's not how it works. The more we as a society let poverty thrive, the more us "bootstrappers" are the ones paying for it.

Again I repeat, this isn't bleeding heart social justice matters, this is basic math. POOR PEOPLE ARE EXPENSIVE.

This comes back to my several posts in this thread saying that economies and money need to be perceived cyclically, not linearly. You can't just write all of those people off as lost causes because they will drown the system with their costs.

This is why effective policy that actually accounts for normal human behaviour is so critical.

[johndoe]

You "honestly" think libertarians support theft?  I may not know all the intricacies of libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that's like... their only rule.  You know... "don't tread on me"

They certainly support wage theft or at best leave it unfettered.

Isn't "wage theft" what they would call taxes? :)

Dare I ask what you mean by it?

[researcher1]

Your beliefs about how unskilled labour "should" be paid reveals this, because level of skill isn't even how pay is determined. Pay is determined by the need for retention, which is largely determined by supply and demand of staff. I've responded to you multiple times giving specific examples where I myself set staff salaries with virtually no regard for staff skill.

That's what I mean by your ideology or world view, you seem to think things do or should work a certain way when that's just not reality. They don't pay grocery baggers little because it's easy, they pay them little because they're easily replaceable. If the shifts were nights, they might have to pay more for the exact same skill level, depending on the population of people willing to work nights, like students. If it's not a college town, but a smaller community with an aging population, they'll likely have to pay a premium to lure people away from their families. Either that, or just eliminate the baggers at night.

My "belief" about unskilled labor is that we should not mandate companies to pay $15+ minimum wages in order to meet some arbitrary "living wage" threshold.
Instead, we should largely let the market decide how much these positions should be paid, as you describe above.

I agree with virtually everything you say above.  So I'm not sure why you think my "world view" is "not reality".

The only point I'll make is that grocery baggers are easily replaceable, in large part because the job is easy.
Virtually every breathing human, from age 12-80, can do the job with absolutely no skills/training.

[Luck12]

Isn't "wage theft" what they would call taxes? :)

Dare I ask what you mean by it?

Really, you've never heard of businesses forcing employees to do off the clock work?   Or not paying them for overtime even when they are legally entitled to it?  Or stealing tips?   Right wing libertarians don't give a shit about these things. It's a $10B cost to employees.  Should be criminal but I've never heard of a director going to jail for doing any of these things. 

As for taxes, on a federal level I do think the non-wealthy are overtaxed, e.g. payroll tax is not necessary, but this is beyond scope of this thread. 

[LoanShark]

Your beliefs about how unskilled labour "should" be paid reveals this, because level of skill isn't even how pay is determined. Pay is determined by the need for retention, which is largely determined by supply and demand of staff. I've responded to you multiple times giving specific examples where I myself set staff salaries with virtually no regard for staff skill.

That's what I mean by your ideology or world view, you seem to think things do or should work a certain way when that's just not reality. They don't pay grocery baggers little because it's easy, they pay them little because they're easily replaceable. If the shifts were nights, they might have to pay more for the exact same skill level, depending on the population of people willing to work nights, like students. If it's not a college town, but a smaller community with an aging population, they'll likely have to pay a premium to lure people away from their families. Either that, or just eliminate the baggers at night.

My "belief" about unskilled labor is that we should not mandate companies to pay $15+ minimum wages in order to meet some arbitrary "living wage" threshold.
Instead, we should largely let the market decide how much these positions should be paid, as you describe above.

I agree with virtually everything you say above.  So I'm not sure why you think my "world view" is "not reality".

The only point I'll make is that grocery baggers are easily replaceable, in large part because the job is easy.
Virtually every breathing human, from age 12-80, can do the job with absolutely no skills/training.

Bingo. I bagged groceries back in HS; it’s a menial task. No way that should be a $15/hr mandated wage.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Isn't "wage theft" what they would call taxes? :)

Dare I ask what you mean by it?

Really, you've never heard of businesses forcing employees to do off the clock work?   Or not paying them for overtime even when they are legally entitled to it?  Or stealing tips?   Right wing libertarians don't give a shit about these things. It's a $10B cost to employees.  Should be criminal but I've never heard of a director going to jail for doing any of these things. 

As for taxes, on a federal level I do think the non-wealthy are overtaxed, e.g. payroll tax is not necessary, but this is beyond scope of this thread.

I have personally experienced being forced every week for years to do work off-the-clock at a job. The alternative name for this is “slavery”. I did eventually get part of a class action settlement due to it and I was given a whopping $14 for all those hours of work. And the libertarians wonder why anti-capitalists are burning shit down.

[sherr]

Isn't "wage theft" what they would call taxes? :)

Dare I ask what you mean by it?

Wage theft is about a 3x larger problem than regular robbery by amount stolen. And that's merely counting what has been reported / recovered, the vast majority of wage theft goes unreported.

[Metalcat]

Your beliefs about how unskilled labour "should" be paid reveals this, because level of skill isn't even how pay is determined. Pay is determined by the need for retention, which is largely determined by supply and demand of staff. I've responded to you multiple times giving specific examples where I myself set staff salaries with virtually no regard for staff skill.

That's what I mean by your ideology or world view, you seem to think things do or should work a certain way when that's just not reality. They don't pay grocery baggers little because it's easy, they pay them little because they're easily replaceable. If the shifts were nights, they might have to pay more for the exact same skill level, depending on the population of people willing to work nights, like students. If it's not a college town, but a smaller community with an aging population, they'll likely have to pay a premium to lure people away from their families. Either that, or just eliminate the baggers at night.

My "belief" about unskilled labor is that we should not mandate companies to pay $15+ minimum wages in order to meet some arbitrary "living wage" threshold.
Instead, we should largely let the market decide how much these positions should be paid, as you describe above.

I agree with virtually everything you say above.  So I'm not sure why you think my "world view" is "not reality".

The only point I'll make is that grocery baggers are easily replaceable, in large part because the job is easy.
Virtually every breathing human, from age 12-80, can do the job with absolutely no skills/training.

Yeah, I don't know how better I can explain my point so I'm tapping out.

Have a great weekend, I'm going to go find a mindless movie to watch.

[Cool Friend]

My "belief" about unskilled labor is that we should not mandate companies to pay $15+ minimum wages in order to meet some arbitrary "living wage" threshold.
Instead, we should largely let the market decide how much these positions should be paid, as you describe above.

I agree with virtually everything you say above.  So I'm not sure why you think my "world view" is "not reality".

The only point I'll make is that grocery baggers are easily replaceable, in large part because the job is easy.
Virtually every breathing human, from age 12-80, can do the job with absolutely no skills/training.

I'm afraid you are not familiar with modern hiring practices or labor expectations for grocery stories. I don't know how it is in tiny mom-and-pops, but every serious grocery store requires training for all of its positions. There are best practices and skills to learn in every station. Even if you were simply putting things into a bag, there is important information to know at all times: some cleaners cannot be bagged with other cleaners, so you need to know all your cleaning products brands and which contain ammonia, which contain bleach, and so on. You also need efficient spatial skills to bag properly, and you need to account for weight and fragility of items. And most importantly, you are expected to do this as quickly as possible, because the customer is waiting your time spent bagging is actually clocked by management in some places. I've worked in groceries where they post charts on transaction completion rate, and encourage you to compete with one another for speed.

More than this, in every store I've worked in and shopped at (because I started paying attention to these things after working at grocery stores for a couple years), the only people who are exclusively bagging groceries--as in, that is their only responsibility--are the developmentally challenged and mentally ill. Most of the other baggers work as cashiers and switch posts, and sometimes management staff who are trying to keep the lines moving. You rarely, if ever, wear one hat in a grocery store. You can be (and I have been) responsible for collecting carts in the parking lot, restocking, janitorial duties, customer service, et al. The one exception is that you can't just step in at the deli slicer unless you work for the deli department, for liability reasons. Now, you may not respect this type of work, but it's work that needs to be done for our communities to function, as we've learned acutely in 2020, and each of those jobs requires skill. You definitely cannot put any warm body to work at a grocery store without training and expect anything less than trouble.

Also, you keep describing a minimum wage increase as "arbitrary," but proponents of the increases explicitly want to index it to inflation and to corporate profits I'm sure you've seen the chart where the gap between pay and cost of living has been diverging for decades. Proposed increases are not arbitrary at all, they are calculated to keep up with rising fixed costs, which are measurable.

[SwordGuy]

All labor should pay a living wage, full stop. If certain industries need to pay additional money on top of that to attract/retain people to less desirable jobs then that’s fine.

Simple question...
What is the approximate annual salary you think a grocery bagger should be paid in the United States?

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.

You've got things all turned around topsy-turvy.

If that grocery bagging job is necessary for that business to deliver groceries to you, then it's an essential job for that business and the worker doing it should be paid a decent wage.   If it's not essential to the delivery of a product or service or does not provide enough value to cover what it does for the customer then -- duh! -- it's not a job that needs to exist.

So, two methods of grocery delivery:

1) I walk into the grocery store, grab what I want off the shelf, and tote it to the checkout clerk, and they or I toss it in a bag and put it into the cart.   A bagger is not necessary to deliver the product using this method.    Few people will want to pay way more in groceries to have an extra person in the checkout line bagging the groceries.   This job won't exist in any appreciable numbers.  I don't think it's very common now and hasn't been for decades.

2) I want to drive up to the curb outside the store, or have the good brought to my home.  Someone who is not me has to take them off the shelf, bag or box them up and bring them to me.   The persons who do that are essential to this business model until we have robots who can do it.   The people doing that work provide essential work and should be paid a decent living.

3) At some point there may be ways to automate #2 with robots or some other technology I can't conceive of.   At that point, those jobs won't require humans to do them anymore if the automation costs less, so the jobs will go away.   News flash -- this process has been going on since at least when the plow was invented.    It's nothing new.  It will always happen to some career or another.    Human society has been dealing with this issue since we became technologically adept and therefore it's simply NOT a valid excuse to pay poverty wages for a job we still need done.   

[researcher1]

Yeah, I don't know how better I can explain my point so I'm tapping out.

You explained things quite well.  I agree with you on all of this...
"Pay is determined by the need for retention, which is largely determined by supply and demand of staff.

They don't pay grocery baggers little because it's easy, they pay them little because they're easily replaceable. If the shifts were nights, they might have to pay more for the exact same skill level, depending on the population of people willing to work nights, like students.  Either that, or just eliminate the baggers at night.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

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.

Ignoring the wage increase leading to a direct proportianal increase in prices (not borne out in Seattle, at least).

The problem I have with just expanding the safety net is that is it puts the burden to pay wages on the taxpayer, instead of the company.  So then the income of the poor is further detached from the free market.  I never go to McDonalds because they make a shitty inferior product compared to my local owned burger joint.  So why should I pay for their laborforce?  Instead, McDonalds should be responsible both for paying their labor force a living wage and creating a product worth buying, instead of outsourcing their labor wages to me the taxpayer.

(Note: I am not in favor of abolishing the social safety net, I just don't see how it makes sense to subsidize multi-billion dollar corporation's payroll costs.)

The burden of providing decent living conditions should be borne by the taxpayer. This is because work is not the be all and end all of life. Even if you could legislate a living wage (like we do here in Australia), there are plenty of people who cannot work (at all), or who cannot work temporarily, or who cannot find a job that gives them enough hours to have a living wage. I don't think it's feasible or desirable to institute a job guarantee scheme where anyone who wants a job can have a full-time job - that would allow a genuine "living wage" for everyone, but it would result in a huge amount of inefficiency.

Providing services via the government to anyone who wants it skips the problem of a "wage" (at any level) not being a panacea to poverty due to difficulty finding real-world jobs for those with infirmities or disabilities or carer's responsibilities.

As I said also, a "living wage" is susceptible to wage inflation; susceptible to being wasted on frivolous things (which then requires more money into welfare to provide the services in the first place - because you can't just tell people who have wasted their money to go without medical care); and susceptible to being leaked (it ends up propping up people with savings or with other buffers who have living wage conditions even in the absence of the wage). A flat Universal Basic Services provision cuts out all those difficulties and is the most efficient and cheapest way forward.

[researcher1]

If that grocery bagging job is necessary for that business to deliver groceries to you, then it's an essential job for that business and the worker doing it should be paid a decent wage.   If it's not essential to the delivery of a product or service or does not provide enough value to cover what it does for the customer then -- duh! -- it's not a job that needs to exist.

This isn't entirely accurate.

These jobs aren't "essential", but something stores are willing to provide as a value-add for customers, IF the wages paid make sense from a business standpoint.
In my area, grocery stores are happy to pay baggers ~$9/hr or so, which I think is a "decent wage" for this type of work.

However, if they are mandated to pay $15/hr, these jobs will immediately be eliminated and cease to exist, just as you describe above.

[Tigerpine]

When did grocery baggers become shorthand for minimum wage workers writ large?

[Metalcat]

When did grocery baggers become shorthand for minimum wage workers writ large?

Since R1 worked as a bagger and coded it in his brain as emblematic of low skill, minimum wage jobs.

ETA: my movie is dull

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

No, McDonald's can't raise the price on their food because if they did everyone would simply go to Burger King. It's the competition that sets the price, not whether the customers are willing to pay for it (to a point anyway). If there is some sea-level change like raising the minimum wage that applies to everyone, including all fast-food companies and all other restaurants, and they all have price increases that correspond with that increase, then customers simply get used to paying the new going rate for a burger.

That's not how it works.

Consumers only have a finite amount of disposable income to spend.
They don't "simply get used to paying the new going rate."
Instead, they either visit the restaurant less frequently or eliminate eating there altogether.

And guess what happens then...restaurant worker hours get cut back and/or positions eliminated.

If we're talking about a big-mac costing $4.40 instead of $3.99? Yes, that absolutely is how it works. The extra 41 cents mean nothing to the consumer, but when multiplied by thousands of burgers sold per day makes a big difference to the worker.

I would notice the 41c increase (that's 10% by the way). I notice it at my local grocery store when the price of chips goes from $3.80 to $4.00, or apples from $5.50 to $6.50. I'm not saying it's going to ruin my day but I do notice it and it has some impact on my buying decisions!

[Kris]

When did grocery baggers become shorthand for minimum wage workers writ large?

Since R1 worked as a bagger and coded it in his brain as emblematic of low skill, minimum wage jobs.

ETA: my movie is dull

Nah.  Baggers have barely existed in decades. It’s a fake job clung onto as a straw man example by out of touch people who want to argue from a false position of authority.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

You "honestly" think libertarians support theft?  I may not know all the intricacies of libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that's like... their only rule.  You know... "don't tread on me"

They certainly support wage theft or at best leave it unfettered.

We do have laws, both public laws (i.e. fines against companies for wage theft) and private laws (breach of contract remedies) against wage theft. Here in Australia, in fact, there is about to be a massive class action by doctors claiming wage theft due to the insane hours they work - one of my friends told me she's literally on call 24 hours a day for several days in a row. So, I don't think it's right to say that wage theft is unfettered. At most you could say that individuals need to have an understanding of their rights and need to be willing to take steps to enforce them.

But there is a market interaction, you're right. A lot of hospitality and restaurant venues don't pay their staff properly because the consumer will only pay, say, $12 for a meal and not $18. This is one of the after-effects of a fairly high minimum wage. You get what I call compliance leakage due to consumer preferences.

[johndoe]

Really, you've never heard of businesses forcing employees to do off the clock work?   Or not paying them for overtime even when they are legally entitled to it?  Or stealing tips?   Right wing libertarians don't give a shit about these things.

I had no idea it was as big of an issue as @sherr pointed out, interesting.  But why would libertarians support something illegal?  If it's illegal that seems like a pretty black and white issue, no? 

I have personally experienced being forced every week for years to do work off-the-clock at a job. The alternative name for this is “slavery”. I did eventually get part of a class action settlement due to it and I was given a whopping $14 for all those hours of work. And the libertarians wonder why anti-capitalists are burning shit down.

Again, I would say if something illegal is going on I'm not sure why libertarians would support that.  I suppose, at any job I'm aware of, you're not "forced" to do anything illegal (and you likening your plight to slavery is insulting to slaves).  Perhaps libertarians would suggest that if your situation was bad enough you should exercise your right to look for better employment.

[martyconlonontherun]

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/more-than-a-quarter-of-fast-food-workers-are-raising-a-child/278424/#:~:text=(The%20Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics,have%20at%20least%20some%20college.

The fact that people are attempting to support families by taking out trash at McDonald's does not change anything.

I would love to quit my stressful job and support my wife/kids by answering the phone at Wal-Mart, for example.
But that is not reality, as such a job doesn't provide the value necessary to justify a $50K or $100K salary.

These no-skill jobs are low-paying for a reason.

I believe that you have not spent much time working at WalMart if you actually believe that’s “low stress.” LOL

Obviously, there are different scenarios but I worked at a grocery store for 5 years. Yeah, you dealt with crappy customers and managers but it was overall a low stress job. I assume there have been some changes with metrics (ie amazon warehouse workers) but to compare the stress of the job now and similar jobs at my price tier is kind of crazy. I worked long shifts at the grocery store to the point I would literally try scanning my pillow when the alarm went off, but that has nothing with the mounting person of a looming deadline coming up and wondering if I can take a break on the weekend or if I should be working. At the grocery store, the stress ended when your shirt ended*.

*I'm guessing most of the stress of these workers is from their personal life/financial life due to low salary, which is the point of the argument that of course most people would love working as a bagger for $50k.

[AccidentialMustache]

I'd expect a growth in paycheck-to-paycheck living given that wages haven't kept pace with productivity since what, the 70s/80s? The rich get richer, everyone else gets in debt to try to keep up with their perceived spot on the ladder of wealth.

From a certain point of view, in the same field as my dad, 30 years later, I'm only on par after inflation. Roughly 2x from 1990 dollars to 2020 dollars and that's probably about our absolute salary ratio. Similar COL for both of us, so you can ignore any of that factoring in.

Meanwhile, the richest went from 17m to 170m (okay that was 2019 before bezos lost a bunch to his wife). And my dollars are from software where demand, salaries, and perks are "amazing" relative to a lot of the rest of the economy.

So on one hand, making 200k and being broke? You're an idiot. On the other hand, the last 30 years have set you up to fail, so increasing failure should be the expected outcome.

It's wrong to calculate your spending on others' perceived (or even actual) spending. The two should have no connection.

If you separate your ego from your earnings, and your ego from your spending, and your earnings from your spending, you will be a lot happier.

If you can't do all three, start with any particular one of them.

I'm not going to excuse people's financial/emotional unintelligence here. There are plenty of Americans who are nowhere near the bread line who have terrible financial intelligence.

Way to miss the point. Let me spell it out: when someone in software, who's likely in the top 10-15% (or maybe higher, I didn't go look) of income in the country is only "doing roughly as well as his dad did", add in the massive gains of the rich, then the 85-90% of folks below me are going to be less well off than their parents were. That's failure of the American dream right there.

On one hand you can be all "financial irresponsibility" but if you keep that backslide up a few years, the torches and pitchforks start looking tempting to the populous at large.

I don't fancy being a fall-guy for the rich when they try to get the mob to burn me rather than them.

[marty998]

You "honestly" think libertarians support theft?  I may not know all the intricacies of libertarianism, but I'm pretty sure that's like... their only rule.  You know... "don't tread on me"

They certainly support wage theft or at best leave it unfettered.

We do have laws, both public laws (i.e. fines against companies for wage theft) and private laws (breach of contract remedies) against wage theft. Here in Australia, in fact, there is about to be a massive class action by doctors claiming wage theft due to the insane hours they work - one of my friends told me she's literally on call 24 hours a day for several days in a row. So, I don't think it's right to say that wage theft is unfettered. At most you could say that individuals need to have an understanding of their rights and need to be willing to take steps to enforce them.

But there is a market interaction, you're right. A lot of hospitality and restaurant venues don't pay their staff properly because the consumer will only pay, say, $12 for a meal and not $18. This is one of the after-effects of a fairly high minimum wage. You get what I call compliance leakage due to consumer preferences.

I baulked at paying $26 for a burger at our end of year Christmas lunch.

Wages are only half the story in Aus though. It's the absurdly high commercial rents that are the real killer*.

But with respect to the comment on laws - our regulators and courts are pretty useless. The expectation is usually on "the little guy" to show up in court against the bevvy of barristers representing Mega Corp.

It isn't a fair fight, and it never will be. That's why we will continue to need unions to represent workers (and journalists to expose shitty corporate behavior).

*And yet commercial REITs still find a way to underperform the market, on account of blowing up due to leverage every 10 years or so.

[desertadapted]

There have been a lot of fact-free pronouncements about the catastrophic effects of a living wage on employment upthread.  While a living wage is no panacea, and there are employment impacts of increasing the minimum wage, the catastrophizing just isn't borne out.  Below is just a smattering.  I've tried to avoid more ideological citations on both the left and right.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/federal-minimum-wage-research/
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/increasing-minimum-wage-would-help-not-hurt-economy-n1244586
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/seattle-passed-a-15-minimum-wage-law-in-2014-heres-how-its-turned-out-so-far.html

The utter lack of respect for human dignity in this thread has been, to quote another poster, flabbergasting.  The premise of the living wage movement (with $15/hour as a shorthand), is that all full time workers deserve the chance to earn enough to afford a basic, but decent, living.  We are not all born with equivalent gifts or good fortune, be it by nature or nurture.  We cannot all be above average.  But the person who was born with the 80 IQ, or experienced significant adverse childhood experiences, or whose opportunities were limited by endemic poverty, is just as entitled to be able to afford food, housing, and family through the dignity of work.

Proponents of the living wage movement are not so naive to think that an increased wage will solve all of society's ills.  We believe it will help. 

Many of the arguments against a living wage apply just as well against any minimum wage.  The idea that someone would advocate for the Dickensian days before the New Deal is appalling.

The inability to feel empathy is a far greater flaw than to lack the skills to move into management.  The need to judge those less capable, or less fortunate, and consign them to struggle with multiple jobs just to have a chance at that basic dignity is . . . mean.

** For those interested in a deeper dive into what constitutes a living wage in different areas: https://livingwage.mit.edu/

[MudPuppy]

Thank you for the link!

(In my area, living wage for 2 working adults with two children is $15.32)

[mizzourah2006]

When did grocery baggers become shorthand for minimum wage workers writ large?

Since R1 worked as a bagger and coded it in his brain as emblematic of low skill, minimum wage jobs.

ETA: my movie is dull

Nah.  Baggers have barely existed in decades. It’s a fake job clung onto as a straw man example by out of touch people who want to argue from a false position of authority.

The grocery store I worked at still has baggers. I worked there from 1998-2007 and had hours as a bagger almost every year. Was back visiting my mom this summer and went in to pick stuff up and they still had baggers. Long story short....baggers are pretty common in many parts of the US still, especially in stores/chains in the Midwest. Hell replace it with cart pushers if you want. That's largely what we did anyway. Get the carts from the lot and when you're not busy with that bag groceries.

And to piggy back what others have said if you would pay me $20/ hr to be a bagger and give me healthcare it'd be hard for me not to take that job. Talk about Barista FIRE on steroids.

[JGS1980]

There have been a lot of fact-free pronouncements about the catastrophic effects of a living wage on employment upthread.  While a living wage is no panacea, and there are employment impacts of increasing the minimum wage, the catastrophizing just isn't borne out.  Below is just a smattering.  I've tried to avoid more ideological citations on both the left and right.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/federal-minimum-wage-research/
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/increasing-minimum-wage-would-help-not-hurt-economy-n1244586
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/seattle-passed-a-15-minimum-wage-law-in-2014-heres-how-its-turned-out-so-far.html

The utter lack of respect for human dignity in this thread has been, to quote another poster, flabbergasting.  The premise of the living wage movement (with $15/hour as a shorthand), is that all full time workers deserve the chance to earn enough to afford a basic, but decent, living.  We are not all born with equivalent gifts or good fortune, be it by nature or nurture.  We cannot all be above average.  But the person who was born with the 80 IQ, or experienced significant adverse childhood experiences, or whose opportunities were limited by endemic poverty, is just as entitled to be able to afford food, housing, and family through the dignity of work.

Proponents of the living wage movement are not so naive to think that an increased wage will solve all of society's ills.  We believe it will help. 

Many of the arguments against a living wage apply just as well against any minimum wage.  The idea that someone would advocate for the Dickensian days before the New Deal is appalling.

The inability to feel empathy is a far greater flaw than to lack the skills to move into management.  The need to judge those less capable, or less fortunate, and consign them to struggle with multiple jobs just to have a chance at that basic dignity is . . . mean.

** For those interested in a deeper dive into what constitutes a living wage in different areas: https://livingwage.mit.edu/

Great Post!!!

[ender]

I'm also a bit surprised that people think a federally mandated minimum wage makes much sense at all vs regional/state minimum wages. Even within many states, cost of living varies dramatically.

Looking around my state alone from the livingwage.mit.edu link presented earlier, some of the rural counties have target wages already below the state minimum. Some counties (particularly cities) are meaningfully higher.

What I've never understood is the end goal for folks opposed to minimum wage increases and who also want to cut welfare types of benefits. Like... what's the end game there?

Anyways for me, one of the fundamental problems with wages is much more that executive compensation has astronomically outpaced the average worker compensation. Making the federal minimum wage higher helps but only so much. At a certain point, fixing the entire problem surrounding living wage is going to require the ratio of executive compensation to average worker compensation to drop. Either voluntarily (lol...) or via taxation.

[GuitarStv]

I'm also a bit surprised that people think a federally mandated minimum wage makes much sense at all vs regional/state minimum wages. Even within many states, cost of living varies dramatically.

Looking around my state alone from the livingwage.mit.edu link presented earlier, some of the rural counties have target wages already below the state minimum. Some counties (particularly cities) are meaningfully higher.

What I've never understood is the end goal for folks opposed to minimum wage increases and who also want to cut welfare types of benefits. Like... what's the end game there?

Anyways for me, one of the fundamental problems with wages is much more that executive compensation has astronomically outpaced the average worker compensation. Making the federal minimum wage higher helps but only so much. At a certain point, fixing the entire problem surrounding living wage is going to require the ratio of executive compensation to average worker compensation to drop. Either voluntarily (lol...) or via taxation.

Agreed.  Wage disparity is a huge negative for society.  Capitalism by it's nature requires a control on the accumulation of wealth for a functioning economic system and for a middle class to exist at all.  Otherwise capital concentrates and things eventually fall apart.  This has been well studied and documented for over 100 years now.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I have personally experienced being forced every week for years to do work off-the-clock at a job. The alternative name for this is “slavery”. I did eventually get part of a class action settlement due to it and I was given a whopping $14 for all those hours of work. And the libertarians wonder why anti-capitalists are burning shit down.

Again, I would say if something illegal is going on I'm not sure why libertarians would support that.  I suppose, at any job I'm aware of, you're not "forced" to do anything illegal (and you likening your plight to slavery is insulting to slaves).  Perhaps libertarians would suggest that if your situation was bad enough you should exercise your right to look for better employment.

I’m pretty sure that “being forced to work for no money” is the legal definition of slavery, but I may be wrong. Pretty sure I’m not, though.

I’m not surprised, though, that some people don’t have a problem with people working for no money, because in the United States we actually had to have a war and kill hundreds of thousands of people over this issue. A lot of bad people want free labor.

By the way, it’s really hard to “quit and find another job” when there are no other jobs and you have no money to “go somewhere else”, especially when you have absolutely no support network in a new place. That’s actually what I ended up doing to survive. I sold everything I had to scrounge together a few hundred dollars, then moved to a new place using the power of a new technology called “the internet” and took the risk of utter ruination on the chance that I could make it with the scant resources I had. I got lucky, but a lot of other people don’t. It’s hard for me to understand why so many people think putting their neighbors through something like that is positive, when we have the ability and resources to help so many more people become successful.

There are just a lot of bad people out there.

[SunnyDays]

Just as an aside, I rarely shop at stores that bag your groceries on purpose, and now with Covid, they won't do it if you want to use your own bags anyway.  I consider that a win, because apparently the staff are trained to put all the heavy stuff in one bag and all the light stuff in another.  That makes no sense to me.  I like balanced, liftable bags, so I put heavy things in the bottom and light things on the top.  That's the way it used to be done years ago and now it's changed.  I hate it.

[bacchi]

Again, I would say if something illegal is going on I'm not sure why libertarians would support that.

In libertarian land, business rights trump human rights.