Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation

[RetiredAt63]

There used to be lots of horrible badly paid jobs.  The places that hired were called sweat shops.  Then people organized and unionized and conditions got better.  The balance of power was more even between employers and employees.  Since Reagan and Thatcher the social conservatives in most developed economies have discouraged unions, and the balance of power has shifted back to employers.

Unions do more than just negotiate wages, they negotiate working conditions.  My union negotiated maternity leaves a few years before I started teaching, long before they were legislated.  Union improvements often are the lead for social changes.

I just started reading Trust (Pete Buttigieg) and he has some interesting points to make about this. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Instead of 'essential' I would use a word like 'desirable' to describe a job that exists in the open market.

There's very little desirable about a job that pays poverty wages.

So none of the federal minimum wage jobs are "desirable".   And there we find agreement.

But that's side stepping the point.   If a business hires someone to do a job, the business believes that job is worth doing by that person.   Paying the person a decent living should be a requirement in that equation.

The job is desirable to the business (otherwise it wouldn't offer it) and to the person (otherwise he or she wouldn't take it).

You're trying to change a market view of 'desirable' into some sort of socially normative view. Which is not illogical, but it's predicated on some sort of moral stand that many people don't subscribe to.

Even if I were to take your moral argument and say that "a job should necessarily come with a decent living wage" (which is the case here in Australia), the solution for many businesses would be to not offer the job at all.

If I can get a law graduate to do (basic by my standards but objectively pretty advanced) legal research for $30/hour and the Aussie minimum wage is $20/hour, it makes sense to me that anyone with less than 2/3 of the productivity of my law graduate is not going to be employable, at least on my terms. And so it is. I'd happily pay $20/hour for a good cleaner or gardener who comes around and is trustworthy etc etc but would I pay it for some of the real basic no-skill jobs that require no initiative and are entry-level in every sense? No, I wouldn't.

And of course I'm not the arbiter of that - businesses at large are. And I think you'll find the reason why Uber and Airtasker are growing in Australia is because our min wage shuts out the skillset of a lot of people.

[SwordGuy]

Instead of 'essential' I would use a word like 'desirable' to describe a job that exists in the open market.

There's very little desirable about a job that pays poverty wages.

So none of the federal minimum wage jobs are "desirable".   And there we find agreement.

But that's side stepping the point.   If a business hires someone to do a job, the business believes that job is worth doing by that person.   Paying the person a decent living should be a requirement in that equation.

The job is desirable to the business (otherwise it wouldn't offer it) and to the person (otherwise he or she wouldn't take it).

You're trying to change a market view of 'desirable' into some sort of socially normative view. Which is not illogical, but it's predicated on some sort of moral stand that many people don't subscribe to.

Even if I were to take your moral argument and say that "a job should necessarily come with a decent living wage" (which is the case here in Australia), the solution for many businesses would be to not offer the job at all.

If I can get a law graduate to do (basic by my standards but objectively pretty advanced) legal research for $30/hour and the Aussie minimum wage is $20/hour, it makes sense to me that anyone with less than 2/3 of the productivity of my law graduate is not going to be employable, at least on my terms. And so it is. I'd happily pay $20/hour for a good cleaner or gardener who comes around and is trustworthy etc etc but would I pay it for some of the real basic no-skill jobs that require no initiative and are entry-level in every sense? No, I wouldn't.

And of course I'm not the arbiter of that - businesses at large are. And I think you'll find the reason why Uber and Airtasker are growing in Australia is because our min wage shuts out the skillset of a lot of people.

Thank you for so eloquently making my case that many people actively believe that workers should accept whatever conditions management deigns to give them.   After all, starving in a gutter is less desirable than having food to eat while in the gutter, so proof that people accept jobs for a squalid meal is proof of the mutually desirableness of the job.

Along the same lines, as Republican Clayton Williams once said, if you're going to be a victim of rape you should "relax and enjoy it."

Yes, massuh, I'm sorry I troubled you about my pay.   I'll be happy now with my table scraps and rags. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

There is no dichotomy between labour and capital. I have a friend who's now partner of a law firm, but a few years ago she was an employee, and a few years before that she was the law graduate on $25/hour. It's quite possible to transmute.

You are saying that my stance is immoral unless I actively throw away A$20/hour or US $15/hour towards services that I don't want at that price. It seems rather an imposition on me as a business owner. My taxes already go towards welfare as it is. And you're now saying that it's not even enough for me to simply not offer the job - but that I should create the job, and then fill it, and then pay it at a price higher than its real value. No thanks. Welfare suffices. We don't need job-fare.

At the end of the day we each have one vote and so we can speak our personal politics at the ballot box.

P.S. I've always said there should be a minimum safety net - paid by the government and people's taxes - just not paid by business directly in the form of an inflation-creating wage.

[Zamboni]

There are many solutions. One is that you can have childcare subsidies (which in the end is a lot cheaper than blowing out the minimum wage). Another is that you rely more on grandparents - who after all are sitting around getting a pension/social security payments for doing absolutely nothing - for childcare. In Asian countries both parents work and the grandparents are much more active in child raising.

Or you can pass the cost of raising the kids onto the defaulting partner. Those single parent families have a second parent, right, albeit one who's not living with them? That's what child support is for.

Bloop, I get it that you are a lawyer and like to argue.

Two points on the two paragraphs above:
1. The social contract in many Asian countries is that your children will take care of you when you are old. More specifically, your son and his wife will take care of you when you are old and can no longer work. Daughter-in-law will take care of elderly feeble you while she also takes care of your grandchildren, whom you will play with as it suits you, and son will pay the bills. That is the social contract. It has evolved over time into grandparents being forced to care for grandchildren in cases where both parents work, but that's not the way the system was designed. Some might even argue that grandparents having to take care of the grandchildren is a symptom of the system completely breaking down.
2. In single parent-land: Some parents are widowed, some have a partner who landed in jail, and some simply have trouble getting the other parent to own up to responsibility. Those parents ought to have a fighting chance of providing from their children if they are working full time.

[SwordGuy]

There is no dichotomy between labour and capital. I have a friend who's now partner of a law firm, but a few years ago she was an employee, and a few years before that she was the law graduate on $25/hour. It's quite possible to transmute.

It's absolutely possible for a given individual to do that.  It's not possible for ALL individuals to do so because there are not enough good paying jobs.

You are saying that my stance is immoral unless I actively throw away A$20/hour or US $15/hour towards services that I don't want at that price. It seems rather an imposition on me as a business owner. My taxes already go towards welfare as it is. And you're now saying that it's not even enough for me to simply not offer the job - but that I should create the job, and then fill it, and then pay it at a price higher than its real value.

That's a bullshit position.  I've said no such thing.

I haven't said you have to create the job.  I said if you do choose to create the job, the job has to pay a living, not poverty wages.  If you don't want to pay a living for someone to do that job, do without that job being done or do it yourself.

There is a huge difference.

No thanks. Welfare suffices. We don't need job-fare.

Except that the overlap between the set of "people who believe lots of OTHER people (i.e. not them) should be paid shitty wages" and the set of "people who believe welfare should be reduced" is extremely high.

It's like the folks who argue that we shouldn't give aid to foreigners until we take care of Americans -- and then fight all programs that are designed to help Americans.

At the end of the day we each have one vote and so we can speak our personal politics at the ballot box.

History repeatedly demonstrates that when conditions become intolerable for enough people in a society, they don't settle for a ballot.   They start killing the rich in droves.

Capitalism produces enough wealth that all workers can be paid a decent wage.   

P.S. I've always said there should be a minimum safety net - paid by the government and people's taxes - just not paid by business directly in the form of an inflation-creating wage.

But do you vote for people who attempt to create that safety net and fund it?   Or do you vote for people who actively attempt to gut those programs?

I'll tell you where most people who express your viewpoint vote.  They vote against the people who would set up that safety net.

[six-car-habit]

 I'd happily pay $20/hour for a good cleaner or gardener who comes around and is trustworthy etc etc but would I pay it for some of the real basic no-skill jobs that require no initiative and are entry-level in every sense? No, I wouldn't.

And of course I'm not the arbiter of that - businesses at large are. And I think you'll find the reason why Uber and Airtasker are growing in Australia is because our min wage shuts out the skillset of a lot of people.

  Hmmn. Question on these Bloop, if you'll expound on your thinking.
    You'd be willing to pay the gardner or housecleaner @ $20Aus / hr to work at your own house / business.  Which is approx the minimum wage. You'd probably want someone responsible and honest and efficient, and knowledgeable.  Efficient so they aren't wasting time, and have a logical method for cleaning your surfaces. Responsible to show up on time/ as agreed, and perform the work requested.  Honest so they are not making duplicate keys, or stealing jewelry, or client paperwork. And knowledgeable so they use chemicals correctly in your house, and don't ruin grout/ glasstop ovens/ fabric/ woodwork, etc.
  Same for the gardener - although they'd need to know about various plants / grasses+trees/ transplanting / soil types / water -requirements / seasonal-growing zone issues.

  If the cleaner works for a business, who provides the chemicals , mops , wipes , transportation, etc. - I think it follows the business would need to charge more than $ 40 to schedule 2 hours a week to clean your home / office.  But the cleaner still makes only $20/hr of that.  If they do, say 15 locations per week, plus some travel time, to end up at 40 hrs of earned labor / wages.  Thats 15 houses/offices that single worker could be directly responsible for.  Now some would argue that cleaning is a "non-skilled' job, but by what i think your requirements would be [ honest , efficient, knowledgable, responsible ]  it's starting to seem more skilled than at 1st glance.

 I'm kind of at a loss, why you think that person should not be able to support a child or two, as well as themselves, providing honest, full time-40hr a week- service to several families and businesses in their hometown ??

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Two points on the two paragraphs above:
1. The social contract in many Asian countries is that your children will take care of you when you are old. More specifically, your son and his wife will take care of you when you are old and can no longer work. Daughter-in-law will take care of elderly feeble you while she also takes care of your grandchildren, whom you will play with as it suits you, and son will pay the bills. That is the social contract. It has evolved over time into grandparents being forced to care for grandchildren in cases where both parents work, but that's not the way the system was designed.

Well, to use the phrasing of other posters in this thread, we deal with how systems end up, not how they should be in theory.

A more good faith response to your query might be simply this: as social norms change, so do social responsibilities.

I don't see why we shouldn't aim for a more collectivist distribution of effort.

It really boggles my mind that retirees are paid government pensions to do nothing, even if they're able-bodied. If they're able-bodied they should do something to earn their keep [or just rely on their own savings, alternatively] and perhaps reading aloud or childcare could be one of those things.

Anyway, you're right that not every grandparent is willing or able to look after a kid, and some single parents are widows or widowers and therefore not able to access child support (or presumably an estate). Which is why I said I didn't intend for my scenarios to cover the field, nor to preclude those in-between the cracks from accessing welfare.

We definitely should prioritise parents working and children not growing up in poverty, which is why childcare subsidies or direct cash payments, for (and only for) poor families, should be part of the safety net.

It's absolutely possible for a given individual to do that.  It's not possible for ALL individuals to do so because there are not enough good paying jobs.

Right, but that means that your casual dichotomy between capital and labour needs much more nuance. Since there is intermingling.

I haven't said you have to create the job.  I said if you do choose to create the job, the job has to pay a living, not poverty wages.  If you don't want to pay a living for someone to do that job, do without that job being done or do it yourself.

Right, which is exactly the same as what I said - we're in heated agreement. Here in Australia the min wage precludes a lot of low skilled workers from having a job at all, other than via the gig economy, because the min wage is so high. That's why people are always whinging about insecure employment, casual employment, gig economy, etc

Except that the overlap between the set of "people who believe lots of OTHER people (i.e. not them) should be paid shitty wages" and the set of "people who believe welfare should be reduced" is extremely high.

I do believe welfare should be reduced, because some of it leaks to the middle and upper-middle class. The poor however need a robust safety net. This same safety net prevents insurrection and discontent.

 I'd happily pay $20/hour for a good cleaner or gardener who comes around and is trustworthy etc etc but would I pay it for some of the real basic no-skill jobs that require no initiative and are entry-level in every sense? No, I wouldn't.

And of course I'm not the arbiter of that - businesses at large are. And I think you'll find the reason why Uber and Airtasker are growing in Australia is because our min wage shuts out the skillset of a lot of people.

  Hmmn. Question on these Bloop, if you'll expound on your thinking.
    You'd be willing to pay the gardner or housecleaner @ $20Aus / hr to work at your own house / business.  Which is approx the minimum wage. You'd probably want someone responsible and honest and efficient, and knowledgeable.  Efficient so they aren't wasting time, and have a logical method for cleaning your surfaces. Responsible to show up on time/ as agreed, and perform the work requested.  Honest so they are not making duplicate keys, or stealing jewelry, or client paperwork. And knowledgeable so they use chemicals correctly in your house, and don't ruin grout/ glasstop ovens/ fabric/ woodwork, etc.
  Same for the gardener - although they'd need to know about various plants / grasses+trees/ transplanting / soil types / water -requirements / seasonal-growing zone issues.

  If the cleaner works for a business, who provides the chemicals , mops , wipes , transportation, etc. - I think it follows the business would need to charge more than $ 40 to schedule 2 hours a week to clean your home / office.  But the cleaner still makes only $20/hr of that.  If they do, say 15 locations per week, plus some travel time, to end up at 40 hrs of earned labor / wages.  Thats 15 houses/offices that single worker could be directly responsible for.  Now some would argue that cleaning is a "non-skilled' job, but by what i think your requirements would be [ honest , efficient, knowledgable, responsible ]  it's starting to seem more skilled than at 1st glance.

 I'm kind of at a loss, why you think that person should not be able to support a child or two, as well as themselves, providing honest, full time-40hr a week- service to several families and businesses in their hometown ??

I agree the cleaner/housekeeper in question is not a very low skilled job. As you say, there is a certain efficiency and initiative shown by a good cleaner or a good housekeeper which is why I'd be willing to pay $20 (actually more like $25/hour is the going rate, I think) for the service. And at that wage, a person would definitely be able to support a child or two, if earning $20/hour for an honest 40 hours a week. The person would have little problem doing so, particularly here in Australia where you get a lot of tax offsets if you're poor, not to mention cash payments if you're poor and have dependants. The person on $40k a year would end up with a disposable (after tax, after government handout) income higher than his or her gross income.

The problem really comes at the lowest end of the scale - not self-directed gardeners/cleaners, but perhaps janitors, fast food workers, cashiers, service station attendants, etc. Because frankly they're worth less than min wage on a market basis. So then the question becomes, well how do their jobs remain sustainable. And they probably aren't and they will fall into welfare which will be given to them if they don't have built up savings.

[bill1827]

It really boggles my mind that retirees are paid government pensions to do nothing, even if they're able-bodied. If they're able-bodied they should do something to earn their keep [or just rely on their own savings, alternatively] and perhaps reading aloud or childcare could be one of those things.

It really boggles my mind that someone seems to expect other people to, in effect, work as slaves.

State pensions are a benefit provided by the state after a lifetime of contributions to the state's coffers; in other words the pensioner has paid for the pension and should be free to enjoy it as they wish. Of course, in countries like the UK the state pension is so inadequate (after decades of depredation by libertarians) that it has to be supplemented by work or other means tested benefits to raise it to a barely sufficient amount, if you don't have another source of income.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

The Australian pension is provided by the state to all residents over 67 regardless of the extent, if any, of a person's financial contributions over his or her lifetime. No one has necessarily paid for the pension. There is no "pension fund" other than general tax revenue. You're entitled to a very generous pension as of right unless you exceed the assets test (which is very generous - mid-6 figures).

[RetiredAt63]

Bloop bloop, you are arguing from an Australian base.  Remember most people here are Americans, where both the minimum wage and social safety net are pathetic.  It helps to check where other posters live (if they show it), since their basic assumptions may be very different from yours.  Talking about government pensions, for example, countries differ wildly in this.

[Metalcat]

Who just hauled the grandparents back to child care?  They did it once already.  And given today's demographics, the grandparent (I figure Granny, because do you really think Gramps will be suckered into this?) may be well into her 60s or 70s.  Perfect age to care for an energetic toddler, right?  Plus her grandchildren may not live near her, and 2 sets of grand children may live in opposite directions.  And then one child feels slighted if his/her Mom is looking acfer the sibling's kids.  My Mom told me not to count on her for child care, back in the 70s, and I told DD tbe same.  In cultures where the eextended family lives together this may work, but it should not be an expectation by policy setters.  Quebec's $7/day daycare works a lot better.

And support by a divorced Dad (it's usually Dad) can be almost impossible to collect.  They hide their income, they quit their jobs, they move out of the jurisdiction.  Go read a divorce discussion thread.   Not the good Dads, obviously,  because they don't show up in the stories of deadbeat Dads, and their families are OK financially.

And if you have infirmities?  You get hung out to dry?


Basically effective policy needs to look at reality, not ideal situations.  Here our various Conservative parties seem to want to set policy based on the "good old days"  which were great if you were a middle class white man.

No, why would you deliberately twist my words and miss my argument? Maybe you're right and 80% of "divorced Dads" (to use your phrasing, not mine) are deadbeat losers who won't pay up child support. That's okay, it doesn't cover the field, but it helps 20% of single mums, right? Maybe only 20% of grandparents have the time, physical wellbeing and inclination to help out with childcare (though I wonder why it is that in China and Japan, so many more grandparents seem to be able to help....)...but anyway that's okay, that's another 20% of single parents provided for. Maybe altogether my patchwork solutions only help 50-60% of the population...that's still a 50-60% cost savings.

For those who slip between the cracks, or have infirmities, as I said, you can pay a childcare subsidy or direct cash payment.

The point is to try to be frugal and resourceful with our spending, and not overspend.

Yeah, but you are making up numbers.

Policy is actually extremely thoroughly researched, and all of the factors you are talking about are looked at.

Also, you coming up with examples of exceptions doesn't in any way negate what I said in the first place, and that was that there ARE people in the system who are single parents who require a minimum wage to support their 4 person family.

Either the minimum wage needs to support them or social programs. You assume that social programs are cheaper, but as the spouse of someone who works on those exact types of social programs, I don't assume that.

The point I was trying to make, which you seem to be ignoring, is that policy that "sounds reasonable" isn't good policy. It has to be supported by solid research and analyzed thoroughly as to what the ACTUAL demographics are and the probable downstream costs and benefits to other systems.

It's just not as simple as "I don't think a minimum wage should support more than a single person"

Okay fine, you can think that all you want, and you can think that social programs are a better alternative, but I'm not seeing *anything* from you other than ideology to explain why, and made up numbers about demographics.

You might be right that social programs are the more effective way to deal with cases of single parents with no support. You might actually be right, but you've demonstrated no knowledge of the complex economic and policy issues behind it.

So your stance is purely ideological. It's just what you intuitively "feel" makes sense to you for various reasons.

That's not how economic policy works though. There is, and should be, a lot more to it than what just sounds like something that makes enough sense without any accurate analysis.

[OtherJen]

Bloop bloop, you are arguing from an Australian base.  Remember most people here are Americans, where both the minimum wage and social safety net are pathetic.  It helps to check where other posters live (if they show it), since their basic assumptions may be very different from yours.  Talking about government pensions, for example, countries differ wildly in this.

Good luck getting that point across. It hasn’t seemed to work yet.

Here in the US, I pay 15.3% of my income to FICA to fund Social Security and Medicare. You’d better believe that I intend to use both when I hit the age of eligibility. And they will help support my lifestyle of community volunteer work (which I suppose some would consider worthless because it isn’t wage-earning), as they do for many of my retired friends.

[Zamboni]

$20/h is the minimum wage in Aus? That's $15/h in USD. Perfectly reasonable. Not excessive.

Having been to Aus, my experience was that food and clothes were cheaper or "the same" as in the US, but it was in Aus dollars, which means they were actually cheaper given the exchange rate. Housing varies from being at California level in Sydney to being more like small city US level in Adelaide. But again, it's AUS dollars, so Sydney doesn't rally match California or NYC, it is cheaper. More like Denver, maybe?

I found that service in things like clothing stores was much better in Australia. Huh, do you think that is because the people working there were making the equivalent of $15/h USD as opposed to around $8/h USD that they would be paid in the US? I mean, when people are paid better, do most people actually value their job more and try to do a better job? What a concept.

In any event, I find the argument that people should be paid less money than they need to live if they are putting in an honest full time effort completely repulsive. Or more appropriate, I think that if "frankly they're worth less than min wage on a market basis" is your stance, then that's a bullshit argument and you are pretty high on your horse. I hope you never suffer a head injury that knocks a few points off your IQ. People are not "worth less than min wage," but rather prices are artificially low for some products due to the ability of employers to pay slave-level wages.

But also I think this "prices will have to go up a lot" is likely complete nonsense in many cases. For example, a fancy coffee stand is an extremely high margin business . . . yet some pay crap wages in the US. If minimum wage was raised by law, then the prices of some things would increase, while others really wouldn't because they are inflated already relative to what is really needed to keep the business open.

In the US, people pay wages directly into our pension system (social security) directly as they work based upon their wages, and then the amount of benefits at retirement is calculated based upon what you paid in. In effect, the government is just holding people's money. With this model, everyone who pays into the system should be allowed to retire at the age set. The problem with this system is that some workers don't end up paying into it due to various loopholes due to the gig economy aka move towards "contract workers", and they don't even realize in some cases that they are being left out. Industry is eager to exploit this model since it also absolves them of some paperwork and of having to pay benefits like family leave.

[ender]

I'd also be ok with taxing companies much more heavily based on their lowest wages in the company.

Want to pay a bunch of folks minimum wage while the CEO takes in $100M/year? Great. You're going to pay a ton more in taxes to support social programs.

The problem is this is incredibly messy to implement, because taxes are normally on "profits."

But... I'm also not sure many companies will pay their executives less in order to pay people more based on taxation, so I think the only real viable options are:

• Heavily penalize executive pay based on minimum/median wages in their company
• Require minimum wages to increase

I just don't see a viable option otherwise.

[SwordGuy]

Heavily penalize executive pay based on minimum/median wages in their company

If the are running the company so badly that the employees have to be paid poverty wages, senior management shouldn't be making the big bucks.  Nor should shareholders.

[RetiredAt63]

Heavily penalize executive pay based on minimum/median wages in their company

If the are running the company so badly that the employees have to be paid poverty wages, senior management shouldn't be making the big bucks.  Nor should shareholders.

Isn't it a flip?  The company is making lots of money for shareholders and top executives because they are paying shit wages?  The wage gap has been increasing for years.  Decades?  I'm not an economist, someone must know where to find those figures.  And not just for the |US, for Canada, UK, Australia, various European countries. 

The Scandinavian countries seem to have managed to be more equitable about salaries and their economies seem to be doing well.

[SwordGuy]

Heavily penalize executive pay based on minimum/median wages in their company

If the are running the company so badly that the employees have to be paid poverty wages, senior management shouldn't be making the big bucks.  Nor should shareholders.

Isn't it a flip?  The company is making lots of money for shareholders and top executives because they are paying shit wages?  The wage gap has been increasing for years.  Decades?  I'm not an economist, someone must know where to find those figures.  And not just for the |US, for Canada, UK, Australia, various European countries. 

The Scandinavian countries seem to have managed to be more equitable about salaries and their economies seem to be doing well.

Oh, I agree with you.   But sometimes it's more effective to accept the other point of view and argue from it.  :)

I can guarantdamntee you that if executive pay or dividends were significantly lowered if employees were paid poverty wages -- and we promptly publicly executed those executives who tried to end-around it by outsourcing the piss-poor wages to shell companies -- that a host of companies would suddenly discover they could afford those higher wages after all.   

And some current poverty wage jobs would be eliminated.   I suspect that more jobs would open up because of the increased purchasing power of those who remained employed.

And yes, restaurant food would cost more.   So be it.   The wealthy might all be able to afford a bit less but no one working would be in poverty.

[scottish]

I'm surprised that nobody has discussed the effects of globalization and automation.    Other countries can and will do the work that (used to) be done in the first world for a lot less money.  The service industry is slowly being replaced by automated solutions.

Do you all feel that these changes are inevitable?     Or is there some way to head them off?    Or perhaps rising standards of living in the developing world will eventually make it cost effective to move  manufacturing back to North America...

It seems to me that both unions and higher wage levels are responsible for much of the "off-shoring" of manufacturing.    It's gone so far that there's the question of how long it would take a company like Intel to retool to the point where they could manufacture their product in North America again.

It's a nice philosophical debate about how minimum wage should be a living wage, but I think you're missing the elephant in the room...

[ender]

I'm surprised that nobody has discussed the effects of globalization and automation.    Other countries can and will do the work that (used to) be done in the first world for a lot less money.  The service industry is slowly being replaced by automated solutions.

Do you all feel that these changes are inevitable?     Or is there some way to head them off?    Or perhaps rising standards of living in the developing world will eventually make it cost effective to move  manufacturing back to North America...

It seems to me that both unions and higher wage levels are responsible for much of the "off-shoring" of manufacturing.    It's gone so far that there's the question of how long it would take a company like Intel to retool to the point where they could manufacture their product in North America again.

It's a nice philosophical debate about how minimum wage should be a living wage, but I think you're missing the elephant in the room...

This sort of thing has been happening in some fashion for centuries, though.

[SwordGuy]

I'm surprised that nobody has discussed the effects of globalization and automation.    Other countries can and will do the work that (used to) be done in the first world for a lot less money.  The service industry is slowly being replaced by automated solutions.

Do you all feel that these changes are inevitable?     Or is there some way to head them off?    Or perhaps rising standards of living in the developing world will eventually make it cost effective to move  manufacturing back to North America...

It seems to me that both unions and higher wage levels are responsible for much of the "off-shoring" of manufacturing.    It's gone so far that there's the question of how long it would take a company like Intel to retool to the point where they could manufacture their product in North America again.

It's a nice philosophical debate about how minimum wage should be a living wage, but I think you're missing the elephant in the room...

Employers can exploit workers in other countries because those workers don't have the freedom, laws or social structure to fight back effectively.   Ditto for employers being able to pollute freely.

Our trade policies are set up to allow for free or cheap movement of goods across borders.

If we and Europe and other developed countries set up a tariff that was based upon labor and anti-pollution standards, where tariffs are high if workers are exploited or pollution is allowed, then instead of a race to the bottom standards (which is what we have now), we would have a race to the top. 

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

Yeah, but you are making up numbers.

Policy is actually extremely thoroughly researched, and all of the factors you are talking about are looked at.

Of course I'm making up numbers. I don't know if it's 2%, 20% or 40% of single parent minimum wage earners who would be helped out by effective child support laws (so that the defaulting spouse has to pitch in). But it doesn't matter, does it? As long as the percentage is >0%, my point stands that at least a portion of the population ought to get their financial assistance from a defaulting private source rather than from (or rather than from purely) the state.

Also, you coming up with examples of exceptions doesn't in any way negate what I said in the first place, and that was that there ARE people in the system who are single parents who require a minimum wage to support their 4 person family.

Totally. Which is why I said some people will need childcare subsidies or cash payments. But not all. So unless you're arguing (and I know you're not) that ALL people in the system are single parents who have no other sources of support or financial aid and therefore need a min wage to support a 4 person family, then the min wage need not be set at an amount that supports a 4 person family. Otherwise all the others who don't need that much support will be 'overpaid'. However, we should have state supports in place for the portion who fall into the category you mentioned.

Either the minimum wage needs to support them or social programs. You assume that social programs are cheaper, but as the spouse of someone who works on those exact types of social programs, I don't assume that.

It's not just a dollar to dollar comparison in relation to the cost of social programs for the individuals affected. It also needs to take into account the effect (on inflation) for everyone in society if min wage is raised to the point that everyone on it who works full-time can support a 4 person family (whether or not they need that money).

The point I was trying to make, which you seem to be ignoring, is that policy that "sounds reasonable" isn't good policy. It has to be supported by solid research and analyzed thoroughly as to what the ACTUAL demographics are and the probable downstream costs and benefits to other systems.

Right, but I'm the incumbent - my suggestions are closer to the actual state of affairs than yours. So if you're going to argue policy, then you can put some policy arguments forward for your proposed solution.

So your stance is purely ideological.

No more or less than any stance when it comes to this issue.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

$20/h is the minimum wage in Aus? That's $15/h in USD. Perfectly reasonable. Not excessive.

Having been to Aus, my experience was that food and clothes were cheaper or "the same" as in the US, but it was in Aus dollars, which means they were actually cheaper given the exchange rate. Housing varies from being at California level in Sydney to being more like small city US level in Adelaide. But again, it's AUS dollars, so Sydney doesn't rally match California or NYC, it is cheaper. More like Denver, maybe?

Having lived in both places, I find food and groceries somewhat more expensive, clothes usually more expensive [Levi's here cost a lot more than Levi's in the US, for example], and the vast majority of high-end goods to be much, much more expense. A 911 at base costs $230,000 here compared to $95,000 in the US. I agree that housing isn't that expensive here (despite a lot of Australian whinging). The Melb average house price is A$800k compared to, say, San Francisco which is well in excess of A$1.5m

Using a more objective measure, the OECD lists Australia's 2019 PPP at 1.44 so it's more expensive to live here than in the U.S.

This is partly offset by higher median and average incomes - though incomes tail off badly at the top end here.

If you wanted to FIRE here (like I do) you'd need a much larger stash and/or a higher [relative] earning capacity than you would in the U.S. - I would argue that fewer Australians have the financial means to fully FIRE, but our state welfare system provides a much better safety net.

People are not "worth less than min wage," but rather prices are artificially low for some products due to the ability of employers to pay slave-level wages.

Where's the "artifice"? What makes it artificially low if an employer these days has almost no need for a service station attendant given that most consumers are happy to pump their own petrol?  Or if the value of an Uber Pool trip is very low because it takes so little skill to ferry people around in a car (and everyone can do it)?

[Zamboni]

Lol, Levi's (a distinctly American brand) are cheaper in the US? Well my kangaroo leather shoes were WAAAY cheaper in Oz. And, you are much closer to SE Asia, so imports from SE Asia are likely cheaper (which means the Levi's should be cheaper in AUS. . . . guess you are paying for the desire to have American image pants). It makes sense to me that European cars cost more in AUS just based upon the distances they need to be shipped. Guess it matters entirely what you are buying?

I think $20/h there is perfectly reasonable minimum wage. It's half that rate in the US, which is too low.

Finally, how old are you? I haven't seen a gas station attendant since I was a very small child. I doubt my own children have ever seen one. Cars used to be more of a luxury item, and rich people are used to having people to do their stuff for them. Initially when self serve became a thing, the rate per gal was lower. Once we moved passed only the leisure wealthy having cars, the service aspect of service station became de-emphasized.

[SwordGuy]

Why is it that this is an acceptable argument:

CEOs deserve to be paid mega-money because they work for it.

but this is not:

Low paid workers do not deserve to be paid a living when they are working for a living.

I just read a "defense" of why a living wage that would support a family shouldn't be paid to all people who work for a living because "they might not need it" if they don't have a family.

In my 62 years on earth I've never, ever, heard that same group of people say that a highly paid worker should be paid less because they aren't married.   Why is it ok to trash on the poor but not the rich?

[bmjohnson35]

"CEOs deserve to be paid mega-money because they work for it."

I am also amazed how many people buy into this. The notion that CEO's are worth the crazy compensation packages/contracts they often negotiate is naive at best.  Should they be compensated more.......of course they should, but not to the degree they often are these days.  It's simply amazing when you see a CEO "fired" or asked to leave and they are paid millions to go away.  As a former manager, I do not miss having to notify an employee their annual merit adjustment will only be 1.7% and you know they just read about the company's CEO bonus in the millions.

CEO's are like politicians, once they're in, they are hard to get rid of and they operate under their own set of rules.   

[Plina]

Finally, how old are you? I haven't seen a gas station attendant since I was a very small child. I doubt my own children have ever seen one. Cars used to be more of a luxury item, and rich people are used to having people to do their stuff for them. Initially when self serve became a thing, the rate per gal was lower. Once we moved passed only the leisure wealthy having cars, the service aspect of service station became de-emphasized.

Try visiting Miami. I met one there a couple of years ago.

[GuitarStv]

"CEOs deserve to be paid mega-money because they work for it."

I am also amazed how many people buy into this. The notion that CEO's are worth the crazy compensation packages/contracts they often negotiate is naive at best.  Should they be compensated more.......of course they should, but not to the degree they often are these days.  It's simply amazing when you see a CEO "fired" or asked to leave and they are paid millions to go away.  As a former manager, I do not miss having to notify an employee their annual merit adjustment will only be 1.7% and you know they just read about the company's CEO bonus in the millions.

CEO's are like politicians, once they're in, they are hard to get rid of and they operate under their own set of rules.   

I'm not sure the comparison to politicians holds.  CEOs typically have much less oversight and far fewer people watching their actions to keep them in line ethically.

:P

[Eowyn_MI]

Why is it that this is an acceptable argument:

CEOs deserve to be paid mega-money because they work for it.

but this is not:

Low paid workers do not deserve to be paid a living when they are working for a living.

I just read a "defense" of why a living wage that would support a family shouldn't be paid to all people who work for a living because "they might not need it" if they don't have a family.

In my 62 years on earth I've never, ever, heard that same group of people say that a highly paid worker should be paid less because they aren't married.   Why is it ok to trash on the poor but not the rich?

If the government is going to require that businesses pay employees a "living wage" then someone needs to define what a "living wage" is.  The amount needed for a living wage is going to be different if you are a single person or a married with kids person.  It's not trashing poor people when someone says that the "living wage" these two groups require for basic survival needs is going to be substantially different.

I don't know exactly how compensation for CEOs works but I highly doubt that the government is requiring a certain minimum wage for all CEOs.

[Phenix]

Finally, how old are you? I haven't seen a gas station attendant since I was a very small child. I doubt my own children have ever seen one. Cars used to be more of a luxury item, and rich people are used to having people to do their stuff for them. Initially when self serve became a thing, the rate per gal was lower. Once we moved passed only the leisure wealthy having cars, the service aspect of service station became de-emphasized.

Try visiting Miami. I met one there a couple of years ago.

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

In the United States, gas jockeys were often tipped for their services,[3] but this is now rare as full-service stations are uncommon except in the states New Jersey and Oregon (counties with more than 40,000 residents), the town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and the town of Huntington, New York, where retail customers are prohibited by law from pumping their own gasoline.

[OtherJen]

I remember seeing gas station attendants when I was a kid (pretty sure that Mom still can't pump gas because Dad always does it for her), but I've been driving since 1994 and have never dealt with a gas station attendant.

[mathlete]

Haven't been tracking the conversation recently, but I had my first run-in with a gas station attendant last year in Oregon. A monument to inefficiency.  There must have been 10 cars lined up at tanks, with one attendant running back and forth to get everyone going. I weep for the time and human capital wasted.

[Sugaree]

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

This minimum wage argument makes absolutely no sense!

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

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

That argument makes no sense to me.

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

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

Are there many "minimum wage factory jobs" anymore? I live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I often drive past lots of warehouses and factories (including my employer). Some of these are small places that might employ a couple of dozen people, while others are massive with hundreds or even thousands of employees. For several months now, most of these businesses have had large signage out front that says 'help wanted' or 'now hiring' and they're starting people at $14-19/hr.
Any US citizen that can pass a drug test (and maybe a background check at the larger places) can start out making at least double the minimum wage in my area if they're willing to work full time hours in an industrial environment.

I live in an area where the "best" factory jobs are the car manufacturers.  Aside from the fact that these are jobs that tend to chew you up and spit you out (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs), workers are almost exclusively hired through temp agencies, so employees rarely see the wage advertised.

[JGS1980]

I live in an area where the "best" factory jobs are the car manufacturers.  Aside from the fact that these are jobs that tend to chew you up and spit you out (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs), workers are almost exclusively hired through temp agencies, so employees rarely see the wage advertised.

Yup, that's just more "race to the bottom" nonsense.

1st some southern states provide huge subsidies to attract car manufacturers to their states. You know, for the jobs.
Then, those same companies (and the states!) fight tooth and nail to keep those factories from unionizing.
Later, those promised hourly wages never develop. Workers themselves being blamed for it.
Outsource this, outsource that. Temp agencies are a great example.
Refuse disability benefits and ramp it up the legal hierarchy as needed.
These shit companies are like slot machines that just don't pay out.

[Plina]

Finally, how old are you? I haven't seen a gas station attendant since I was a very small child. I doubt my own children have ever seen one. Cars used to be more of a luxury item, and rich people are used to having people to do their stuff for them. Initially when self serve became a thing, the rate per gal was lower. Once we moved passed only the leisure wealthy having cars, the service aspect of service station became de-emphasized.

Try visiting Miami. I met one there a couple of years ago.

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

In the United States, gas jockeys were often tipped for their services,[3] but this is now rare as full-service stations are uncommon except in the states New Jersey and Oregon (counties with more than 40,000 residents), the town of Weymouth, Massachusetts, and the town of Huntington, New York, where retail customers are prohibited by law from pumping their own gasoline.

That article says that Finland has filling service attendants, which I have never seen during 40 years.

[DadJokes]

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

This minimum wage argument makes absolutely no sense!

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

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

That argument makes no sense to me.

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

Eye. Roll.

Those jobs historically were done by high-school kids or college students for whom it was mostly disposable income, not wages to live on.

An awful lot of minimum wage factory jobs today were full time jobs with benefits fifty or sixty years ago.

Are there many "minimum wage factory jobs" anymore? I live in a state where the minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I often drive past lots of warehouses and factories (including my employer). Some of these are small places that might employ a couple of dozen people, while others are massive with hundreds or even thousands of employees. For several months now, most of these businesses have had large signage out front that says 'help wanted' or 'now hiring' and they're starting people at $14-19/hr.
Any US citizen that can pass a drug test (and maybe a background check at the larger places) can start out making at least double the minimum wage in my area if they're willing to work full time hours in an industrial environment.

I worked in a warehouse job as recently as 2016. With a $7.25 minimum wage, the starting wage there was along the lines of $15/hour (plus bonuses for efficiency), and that is consistent with the many distribution centers in the area where I live.

Outside of retail, restaurants, and grocery stores, I can't really think of any other places that only pay minimum wage around here.

[mizzourah2006]

Our state has a min. wage of $11/hr as of Jan. 1 and most "COL" maps have us as the second least expensive state to live in in the country.

Regarding CEO to lowest paid employee thresholds. I'm sure you'd rather be an executive at a tech company in that case. Would never want to be CEO of a retail company or any company with low skilled employees. If the CEO of say Walmart cut their pay to nothing you'd be able to pay each employee another $11 for the year as there are ~ 2 million employees and his total comp for 2019 was ~22 million.

[SwordGuy]

Our state has a min. wage of $11/hr as of Jan. 1 and most "COL" maps have us as the second least expensive state to live in in the country.

Regarding CEO to lowest paid employee thresholds. I'm sure you'd rather be an executive at a tech company in that case. Would never want to be CEO of a retail company or any company with low skilled employees. If the CEO of say Walmart cut their pay to nothing you'd be able to pay each employee another $11 for the year as there are ~ 2 million employees and his total comp for 2019 was ~22 million.

I'll bet if executive pay was limited by the lowest paid employee, executives would suddenly "discover" that paying those low paid employees more was good business.    After we publicly hung a few for setting up shell companies to shuffle the low paid employees into or other such paperwork games and put their heads on pikes in the Harvard Business School common...

[zolotiyeruki]

I found that service in things like clothing stores was much better in Australia. Huh, do you think that is because the people working there were making the equivalent of $15/h USD as opposed to around $8/h USD that they would be paid in the US? I mean, when people are paid better, do most people actually value their job more and try to do a better job? What a concept.

From that I've seen, that concept doesn't work out in reality.  I work for a small business, and am close with the owners, so I have a bit more insight to the HR side than I otherwise might.  From what I've seen, the answer to the question is a definitive "NO."  Giving more money to an existing employee seldom drives greater output or better service. What it *can* do is allow a business to attract and retain better employees.  Increasing a fast food worker's pay from minimum wage to $15/hr isn't going to increase their value to the company.

In any event, I find the argument that people should be paid less money than they need to live if they are putting in an honest full time effort completely repulsive. Or more appropriate, I think that if "frankly they're worth less than min wage on a market basis" is your stance, then that's a bullshit argument and you are pretty high on your horse. I hope you never suffer a head injury that knocks a few points off your IQ. People are not "worth less than min wage," but rather prices are artificially low for some products due to the ability of employers to pay slave-level wages.

But also I think this "prices will have to go up a lot" is likely complete nonsense in many cases. For example, a fancy coffee stand is an extremely high margin business . . . yet some pay crap wages in the US. If minimum wage was raised by law, then the prices of some things would increase, while others really wouldn't because they are inflated already relative to what is really needed to keep the business open.

The trick, however, is to avoid static analysis, and it's a trap that proponents of higher minimum wage often fall into.  For better or for worse, the labor market follows the law of supply and demand, and governments tinker with it at their own peril.  Yes, we are talking about human beings.  But their labor is subject to market forces, just like anything else that gets bought and sold.

For example, for decades, OPEC artificially inflated the price of petroleum.  Those inflated prices, however, drove the development of competition in the form of fracking.  Once that dam was breached, this new competition absolutely devastated OPEC's profitability.  Artificially increasing the cost of labor similarly increases the incentive to pursue alternatives.   One alternative: automation.  Now, instead of half a dozen baristas making $7.25/hour, you have two people making $15/hour, four touchscreen ordering kiosks, four people unemployed, and a company that's spending $15/hour less on labor.  Personally, I'm not convinced that such is a better situation on the whole for the six people involved.

It's also a matter of opportunity cost.  Double a minimum wage worker's pay, and that money has to come from somewhere.
Option 1) pass the increased cost to consumers.  You get lower unit sales, which hurts the company's profitability.  Fewer sales also means (in the coffee shop example) the business needs fewer franchises to service the customers, and/or they reduce their employees' hours, which somewhat defeats the purpose.
Option 2) maintain prices.  Company takes a profitability hit.  Less money is now available for paying executives and shareholders.  Also less money is available for, say, opening more stores and hiring more people.

It's not an either/or, of course--you can blend the two as you wish.  But in both cases, you end up with fewer jobs.

In the US, people pay wages directly into our pension system (social security) directly as they work based upon their wages, and then the amount of benefits at retirement is calculated based upon what you paid in. In effect, the government is just holding people's money. With this model, everyone who pays into the system should be allowed to retire at the age set. The problem with this system is that some workers don't end up paying into it due to various loopholes due to the gig economy aka move towards "contract workers", and they don't even realize in some cases that they are being left out. Industry is eager to exploit this model since it also absolves them of some paperwork and of having to pay benefits like family leave.

Contract workers still pay FICA taxes.  In fact, since they're contractors, they pay both halves (15% total) of the FICA taxes.  The only way you get out of paying FICA taxes is by working under the table.*

* This is another alternative that becomes more attractive as above-board labor becomes more expensive.  It's not a market-disrupting development like automation is, and I'm absolutely not encouraging breaking the law, but it *is* competition.

[habanero]

We have, compared to the US a much more egalitarian pay structure. We also have no legal minimum wage, but worklife is heavily unionized and there are broad agreements for most areas covering  the vast majority of employees and businesses so you generally can't pay people fuck all for some job. For reference the lowest paid jobs I know of pays around 20 bucks per hour (think cleaning, cashier at a supermarket) and like any full-time job it comes with a quite a few benefits like paid sick leave, maternity/paternity leave if you get kids etcetc. And you don't have to buy health insurance or anything like that. On such an income your tax without any deductibles whatsoever will be around 20%.  If you make over 100-120k USD / year you would be considered well paid by pretty much any standard over here. There are pockets where you can make a lot (law, finance, etc) but the CEOs of the country's largest businesses generally make 0.5-2 million USD/year, which is in the ballpark of a senior partner at a top law firm.

This is all well and good, but it comes with a darker side that's not often spoken of. It makes quite a lot of the workforce unfit for work, meaning unemployment, or in our case a whole bunch on government-paid welfare programs. The relatively high pay level for "simple jobs" (as in not really any formal skills required) and the high total cost of employment due to pay + benefits means that employers are reluctant to hire and based on my limited experience from visiting the US pretty much any business uses less staff here. More automation, self-service, shit you can do yourself on-line instead of actually seeing someone and so on. It also means a pretty high price to pay if you want to outsource something, meaning less folks hire someone to do something. We did for a few years have a cleaning lady, due to some special arrangement in place (official and completely legal) I paid her about 25 bucks / hour. If I had hired a cleaner through a company it would have cost me around 40 bucks / hour  - that's what it costs to hire someone where the employer has to provide all the benefits that comes with a regular job. For a painter I have to pay around 60 bucks / hour, an electrician or a plumber would set me back around 80-100 bucks / hour. Needless to say, we use those as little as humanly possible. I'm pretty handy so do most myself but I stay out of electricity and water under constant pressure from the main grid. And per my insurance terms and national regulations I'm not really allowed to do much in those fields myself anyway.

So, as say a painting company, whoever goes to a gig has to be pretty bloody freakin' good and efficient at painting for a client to accept to bay the 60 bucks / hour for the individual in question. You can't dick around, work slowly and take your time. We hired a company to do a largish paint job a few years ago and I was frankly astonished by how fast it's humanly possible to paint something.  The guy said it's the only way to survive. You have to be very efficient and make no mistakes, they barely break even on the rate they charge and can't really afford complaints and need to redo work or someone bad-mouthing the company.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

This is all well and good, but it comes with a darker side that's not often spoken of. It makes quite a lot of the workforce unfit for work, meaning unemployment, or in our case a whole bunch on government-paid welfare programs. The relatively high pay level for "simple jobs" (as in not really any formal skills required) and the high total cost of employment due to pay + benefits means that employers are reluctant to hire and based on my limited experience from visiting the US pretty much any business uses less staff here. More automation, self-service, shit you can do yourself on-line instead of actually seeing someone and so on.

Thanks for that very illuminating post. This reflects my experience here in Australia. The min wage is $20/hour, and the median full-time wage is the equivalent of about $38/hour. The median wage is more or less set by market forces; the min wage is obviously a legislated threshold. But when you do the sums, the upshot is that the minimum wage is about 53% the median wage. And that's a pretty high hurdle to clear.

It seems self-evident to me that many people in society won't be as 53% productive (however you define productive) as the median person. For example, according to Dr Google, the median male aged 30-39 can do 19 pushups. 53% of that figure is 10 pushups. It's obvious that many, many men (sorry to be gender-biased, but it makes the comparison simpler) cannot do 10 pushups.

Silly comparison, but you get my point. In any distribution of human talent, resourcefulness or ability, requiring the minimum standard to be 53% of the median is going to be tough.

[DadJokes]

For example, for decades, OPEC artificially inflated the price of petroleum.  Those inflated prices, however, drove the development of competition in the form of fracking.  Once that dam was breached, this new competition absolutely devastated OPEC's profitability.  Artificially increasing the cost of labor similarly increases the incentive to pursue alternatives.   One alternative: automation.  Now, instead of half a dozen baristas making $7.25/hour, you have two people making $15/hour, four touchscreen ordering kiosks, four people unemployed, and a company that's spending $15/hour less on labor.  Personally, I'm not convinced that such is a better situation on the whole for the six people involved.

I think this is where we are headed anyway, though pushes to increase the minimum wage are probably accelerating it. I can order my fast food via an app, use self-checkout at the grocery store, and order anything retail stores sell via the internet. This creates new jobs (delivery is certainly growing), though probably not as many as it takes away. The need for low-skill, low-wage jobs is gradually diminishing.

I do think this is where universal basic income will come into play in the future.

[SwordGuy]

The need for low-skill, low-wage jobs is gradually diminishing..

This has been true since the industrial era first started.

[DadJokes]

The need for low-skill, low-wage jobs is gradually diminishing..

This has been true since the industrial era first started.

As a percentage of total jobs, maybe, but the quantity of low-wage jobs still rose for decades, simply due to population growth. I don't think that's the case anymore.