Paycheck-To-Paycheck Nation

[mathlete]

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.

Most laborers would have their wages unaffected by MW increases because a very small percentage of the workforce makes at or around the minimum wage. No one is talking about raising everyone in the country's wages by a flat percentage or anything. There's not much evidence that MW hikes have much impact on inflation. 

All that said, I absolutely agree with you on the bold. It's the government's job to make sure that people don't go without essentials like healthcare and housing. If they want employers to help pay, they can consider raising taxes.

[Metalcat]

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.

The free market?

Where companies do raise prices arbitrarily while simultaneously lowering their product quality and reducing volume to squeeze more profits out of otherwise perfectly profitable product lines?

That totally fair representation of value for dollar?

Yeah...okay.

I so often read your posts and deeply envy the life you've led to believe that the world is so reasonable and fair.

[sherr]

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

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

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

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.

[CodingHare]

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.)

[bbqbonelesswing]

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.

The problem with expanding the safety net in this way is that it subsidizes earnings for the owners of these companies; it is corporate welfare at its worst. Let's take a simplified example of Walmart workers relying on SNAP. You, me, and every other citizen's taxes are paid into these safety nets. They're meant for those who really need them; folks on hard times or unable to work enough to support their families.

Instead of them being used for what they're meant for, a safety net, they become a subsidy, because Walmart knows they can pay say 80% (made up, idk what the real % is) of the wages needed to live and society will pick up the slack. Then they pocket the difference.

For Walmart, this isn't a case of a company barely squeaking by and needing government assistance to stay afloat. Rather, this is a massively profitable company whose owners are among the richest people in the world. And you and I are propping them up. Does that sound fair? Would it not make more sense to cut out the middle man (the state) and let the employer pay their employees directly, and stop gorging themselves on handouts from us?

[mathlete]

I'm always stuck in a weird spot in discussions like this because I think we absolutely need to floor raise in the United States. It's awful how many homeless people we have and how tens of millions go without healthcare. Truly terrible. But when MW hike discussions come up, I don't know where to stand.

I'd much much MUCH rather have legislative time and effort going towards fixing homelessness or universal healthcare. But for some reason, wage hikes are more politically popular. In fact, I think it's very feasible to see a $15 federal minimum wage pass under the incoming president, and pass with bipartisan support.

It's harder to get people to agree on universal healthcare though.

So I don't want a MW hike, in that I'd rather have something else. But if that's all we can get accomplished politically, sure I'll take it.

[mathlete]

The problem with expanding the safety net in this way is that it subsidizes earnings for the owners of these companies; it is corporate welfare at its worst. Let's take a simplified example of Walmart workers relying on SNAP. You, me, and every other citizen's taxes are paid into these safety nets. They're meant for those who really need them; folks on hard times or unable to work enough to support their families.

Instead of them being used for what they're meant for, a safety net, they become a subsidy, because Walmart knows they can pay say 80% (made up, idk what the real % is) of the wages needed to live and society will pick up the slack. Then they pocket the difference.

For Walmart, this isn't a case of a company barely squeaking by and needing government assistance to stay afloat. Rather, this is a massively profitable company whose owners are among the richest people in the world. And you and I are propping them up. Does that sound fair? Would it not make more sense to cut out the middle man (the state) and let the employer pay their employees directly, and stop gorging themselves on handouts from us?

I get why it feels like that, but I'm less concerned about fairness than I am with good outcomes. We can pay for the increased safety net with capital gains taxes. That way, the shareholders of Walmart, who profit off of low wages, foot the bill. But a local restauranteur (who also pays low wages) shares less of the burden.

[researcher1]

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

Part of the issue is that you haven't defined how much your "livable wage" is.
What do you think the annual salary of a dishwasher or grocery bagger should be?

I've already agreed with someone who suggested an average of about $10/hour is appropriate.
In my relatively LCOL area, this is about the going rate for these types of jobs.

Conversely, MudPuppy suggested grocery stores could pay these positions up to $50K a year, which would absolutely have an impact on the cost of groceries.

[CodingHare]

...

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.

Just saw your edit: Agree that services would be much less fraud and error prone than just money.  I think some combination of both would be needed.  There is a tendency (as seen through this whole thread) to assume that the working poor are all morons like those listed in the NPR article, but there are plenty who are jumping from car repair bill to medical emergency as well.  The poor deserve to have autonomy in their purchasing decisions too.  After all, if a person making $200k can be an idiot about their spending, financial illiteracy is not solely a character flaw of the poor.

[MudPuppy]

Conversely, MudPuppy suggested grocery stores could pay these positions up to $50K a year, which would absolutely have an impact on the cost of groceries.

I’ll thank you to not deliberately twist what I said, particularly something I already noted was not an accurate representation of my position or statements.

[MudPuppy]

The problem with expanding the safety net in this way is that it subsidizes earnings for the owners of these companies; it is corporate welfare at its worst. Let's take a simplified example of Walmart workers relying on SNAP. You, me, and every other citizen's taxes are paid into these safety nets. They're meant for those who really need them; folks on hard times or unable to work enough to support their families.

Instead of them being used for what they're meant for, a safety net, they become a subsidy, because Walmart knows they can pay say 80% (made up, idk what the real % is) of the wages needed to live and society will pick up the slack. Then they pocket the difference.

For Walmart, this isn't a case of a company barely squeaking by and needing government assistance to stay afloat. Rather, this is a massively profitable company whose owners are among the richest people in the world. And you and I are propping them up. Does that sound fair? Would it not make more sense to cut out the middle man (the state) and let the employer pay their employees directly, and stop gorging themselves on handouts from us?

I get why it feels like that, but I'm less concerned about fairness than I am with good outcomes. We can pay for the increased safety net with capital gains taxes. That way, the shareholders of Walmart, who profit off of low wages, foot the bill. But a local restauranteur (who also pays low wages) shares less of the burden.

I heartily agree. And establishing even just universal healthcare would go a long way to making current wages more livable.

[Metalcat]

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

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

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

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.

Kind of...

The labour rates in dentistry in Canada have jumped dramatically, as have the overhead costs in general. Yet, the prices haven't kept up with inflation for over a decade.

Dentists just make less money, and no one cares except the dentists, and absolutely no one cares about the dentists.

None of these things are one to one ratios. The system is complex. You can propose an obvious outcome, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

As I said previously, we raised minimum wage here quite significantly a few years ago, and McDonalds prices did not rise proportionally with it.

It's just not that simple.

[SunnyDays]

@Zikoris, I'm curious why you think that the number of people in low IQ groups is growing?  I used to work in this field, and percentages were always stable, with some evidence that fluid IQ is actually increasing.  An IQ of 85 is considered below normal by most measures, but honestly, you wouldn't be able to tell someone with this number apart from someone with a 100 IQ apart in the vast majority of daily situations.  Once you get below70, that's a different story, and at least there are services for these intellectually disabled folks such that they wouldn't be expected to have to make an independent living.

What I do agree with is that simpler jobs are being either replaced by automation or vanish entirely (see bagger), so that bottom rung jobs may require more intellect than previously.

Eventually, when income equality becomes too great and too many people find themselves shut out of even reasonable prosperity, there is a social revolution/revolt, and then things are reset until the balance becomes upset again.  Then another revolt .........

[mathlete]

Re: UBS vs UBI.

I agree in the near term that services are more important. Giving someone a thousand bucks and "empowering them to make their own healthcare choices" is a bad idea. Few people are equipped to compute the present value of the risk of a cancer diagnosis. Bad idea. Just give everyone free (at point of access) healthcare.

Moving forward though, I think a UBI could become useful. Because for less complicated, less expensive, and less critical subjects, cash transfers could actually be more effective. There's research on this in the charitable giving space.

i.e., I could foresee a point at which giving a kid $1000 to do whatever is more effective than say, moving down a 128 point decision tree and spitting out the result, "Here is money to go get HVAC certified."

A mechanically inclined kid might just go get HVAC certified himself. A kid who isn't, might do something with the money that the decision tree would never come up with in a million years. Maybe he buys turntables and does shows at local clubs and handles music at weddings. The world is fundamentally better off than if we had tried to force him through HVAC school.

It's just a silly hypothetical, but you get the point. There comes a point (past healthcare) where you are a better decision maker than the government. I'm fine with UBI once we figure out what that point is.

[researcher1]

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.

[sherr]

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

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

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

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.

Kind of...

The labour rates in dentistry in Canada have jumped dramatically, as have the overhead costs in general. Yet, the prices haven't kept up with inflation for over a decade.

Dentists just make less money, and no one cares except the dentists, and absolutely no one cares about the dentists.

None of these things are one to one ratios. The system is complex. You can propose an obvious outcome, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

As I said previously, we raised minimum wage here quite significantly a few years ago, and McDonalds prices did not rise proportionally with it.

It's just not that simple.

I was definitely not saying that a 10% wage increase for McDonald's workers would lead to a 10% increase in the price of food. That was not the point, and I agree it's not true. But there would probably be some increase, and Researcher was saying that that increase would cause the company to go out of business because "the market wouldn't bear it". My point is that is simply not true and not how it works.

In a free-market economy prices are driven down primarily by competition, at least in commodity-ish things like fast food burgers and grocery store prices. This is why monopolies are bad. Something that affects all companies in the industry equally - like raising minimum wage or requiring them to provide healthcare insurance for example - doesn't really drive anyone out of business.

[Metalcat]

@Zikoris, I'm curious why you think that the number of people in low IQ groups is growing?  I used to work in this field, and percentages were always stable, with some evidence that fluid IQ is actually increasing.  An IQ of 85 is considered below normal by most measures, but honestly, you wouldn't be able to tell someone with this number apart from someone with a 100 IQ apart in the vast majority of daily situations.  Once you get below70, that's a different story, and at least there are services for these intellectually disabled folks such that they wouldn't be expected to have to make an independent living.

What I do agree with is that simpler jobs are being either replaced by automation or vanish entirely (see bagger), so that bottom rung jobs may require more intellect than previously.

Eventually, when income equality becomes too great and too many people find themselves shut out of even reasonable prosperity, there is a social revolution/revolt, and then things are reset until the balance becomes upset again.  Then another revolt .........

Also, all of the studies on the Flynn effect of IQ changing indicate that it's due to environment, so if theoretically UBI were to improve people's living conditions on average, then IQ would rise with it.

[sherr]

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.

[CodingHare]

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.

[mathlete]

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.

Gotta push back on this a little. Consumers are sensitive to price changes. The 41 cents very likely does matter. If it didn't matter, then McDonalds would have a HUGE incentive to figure that out quickly and raise their prices.

[Metalcat]

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.

Again, this is single factor thinking.

If wages are higher, there's more disposable income in the system.

I'm not even remotely an expert on this, i just happen to regularly be around people whose jobs it is to analyze exactly these market forces on the country's workforce.

It's just not as this=that simple as you are making it out to be.

[sherr]

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.

Gotta push back on this a little. Consumers are sensitive to price changes. The 41 cents very likely does matter. If it didn't matter, then McDonalds would have a HUGE incentive to figure that out quickly and raise their prices.

See previous comment where I already addressed that. They can't, outside of a sea-change, because then people would simply go to Burger King instead. It's the competition keeping prices lower, not the consumer.

[Metalcat]

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.

Gotta push back on this a little. Consumers are sensitive to price changes. The 41 cents very likely does matter. If it didn't matter, then McDonalds would have a HUGE incentive to figure that out quickly and raise their prices.

Consumers are sensitive to a 41 cent difference between competing vendors of nearly identical products.

However, they'll tolerate a significant jump in prices of a trendy makeup brand that's regularly sold out.

Customers are sensitive to competition, not so much absolute prices of things. Just look at the fucking insane cost of cell phones now.

[mathlete]

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.

Gotta push back on this as well. I understand that there is a frog boiling in a pot effect here. That people don't notice very gradual increases in prices. But Netflix knew they would be able to raise their rates because the value proposition they were offering at the time they raised rates was much greater than it was when customers originally signed up. i.e., ten years ago it was $7.99 for a limited selection of movies. Now it's $13.99 for a huge selection of shows, movies, and award winning original programming. And they also created a lower tier at $8.99 that streams at lower bitrates to only one device. An option for more price sensitive customers.

[mathlete]

See previous comment where I already addressed that. They can't, outside of a sea-change, because then people would simply go to Burger King instead. It's the competition keeping prices lower, not the consumer.

Competition isn't as relevant here because the market of competitors would probably face uniform wage pressure right?

To flesh this out more, consumers don't have an unlimited demand for fast food burgers at any price. And a high enough price, cooking at home and meal prep becomes more attractive than eating out.

[CodingHare]

Gotta push back on this as well. I understand that there is a frog boiling in a pot effect here. That people don't notice very gradual increases in prices. But Netflix knew they would be able to raise their rates because the value proposition they were offering at the time they raised rates was much greater than it was when customers originally signed up. i.e., ten years ago it was $7.99 for a limited selection of movies. Now it's $13.99 for a huge selection of shows, movies, and award winning original programming. And they also created a lower tier at $8.99 that streams at lower bitrates to only one device. An option for more price sensitive customers.

That's a very good point!  It is a different market than food service, too.  More points in "the economy is not a simple one factor system with purely rational actors" bucket.

[researcher1]

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.

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't.
It is laughable to suggest that consumer price increases "mean nothing to the consumer."
You need to google price elasticity.

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

[mathlete]

Gotta push back on this as well. I understand that there is a frog boiling in a pot effect here. That people don't notice very gradual increases in prices. But Netflix knew they would be able to raise their rates because the value proposition they were offering at the time they raised rates was much greater than it was when customers originally signed up. i.e., ten years ago it was $7.99 for a limited selection of movies. Now it's $13.99 for a huge selection of shows, movies, and award winning original programming. And they also created a lower tier at $8.99 that streams at lower bitrates to only one device. An option for more price sensitive customers.

That's a very good point!  It is a different market than food service, too.  More points in "the economy is not a simple one factor system with purely rational actors" bucket.

Econ class is awesome! We're so close to fantasizing about McDonalds and and BK forming a "Burger Cartel" :)

[sherr]

See previous comment where I already addressed that. They can't, outside of a sea-change, because then people would simply go to Burger King instead. It's the competition keeping prices lower, not the consumer.

Competition isn't as relevant here because the market of competitors would probably face uniform wage pressure right?

To flesh this out more, consumers don't have an unlimited demand for fast food burgers at any price. And a high enough price, cooking at home and meal prep becomes more attractive than eating out.

Right. If Burger King also has a similar increase in prices then people simply pay what it costs and are happy. Well, maybe not "happy", but they pay it anyway, and in a few months they've forgotten that burgers ever used to cost $3.99. That's what I mean by "sea level change", a small fairly gradual effect that applies to everyone.

And I did say in my original post "to a point anyway". Sure, you eventually reach a price where it does matter, but there's no reason to believe we're anywhere near that now. Notably McDonald's has not gone out of business yet even though many jurisdictions throughout the world have in fact increased the minimum wage.

[JGS1980]

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

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

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

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).

[mathlete]

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.

[JGS1980]

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.

The problem with expanding the safety net in this way is that it subsidizes earnings for the owners of these companies; it is corporate welfare at its worst. Let's take a simplified example of Walmart workers relying on SNAP. You, me, and every other citizen's taxes are paid into these safety nets. They're meant for those who really need them; folks on hard times or unable to work enough to support their families.

Instead of them being used for what they're meant for, a safety net, they become a subsidy, because Walmart knows they can pay say 80% (made up, idk what the real % is) of the wages needed to live and society will pick up the slack. Then they pocket the difference.

For Walmart, this isn't a case of a company barely squeaking by and needing government assistance to stay afloat. Rather, this is a massively profitable company whose owners are among the richest people in the world. And you and I are propping them up. Does that sound fair? Would it not make more sense to cut out the middle man (the state) and let the employer pay their employees directly, and stop gorging themselves on handouts from us?

+1

[joemandadman189]

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.

[Metalcat]

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.

Lol

Here in Canada UBI was actually a right wing political proposal intended to LOWER government spending.

Also, if people are spending less on insurance and education, that puts a lot more money in their pockets to dump into the economy.

You have to think circular when it comes to economic policy, not linearly.

[mathlete]

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

[JGS1980]

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.

Mathlete, I always enjoy our conversations and your input. Thanks for being a good one.

I would say that you misheard me a bit there. I'm not placing any moral judgements on McDonalds shoppers at all. I'm just saying there are some downstream $$$ effects of shit food that need to be considered.

The Federal Govt took this into consideration when they sued the tobacco companies for billions and billions of dollars a couple decades ago. They also hiked tobacco product costs into the stratosphere....and the states are STILL losing money (when you consider the ever increasing costs of treating cancer) while tobacco companies remain profitable. Why should the public continue to subsidize tobacco companies? Should we subsidize Big Oil (climate change, pollution health effects -oops)? Should a 2 Liter bottle of Coca Cola cost less than a 2 Liter bottle of water, even though its the same water with extra stuff added, which also happens to lead to long term negative health outcomes?

Great, now I'm depressed.

[Metalcat]

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.

Mathlete, I always enjoy our conversations and your input. Thanks for being a good one.

I would say that you misheard me a bit there. I'm not placing any moral judgements on McDonalds shoppers at all. I'm just saying there are some downstream $$$ effects of shit food that need to be considered.

The Federal Govt took this into consideration when they sued the tobacco companies for billions and billions of dollars a couple decades ago. They also hiked tobacco product costs into the stratosphere....and the states are STILL losing money (when you consider the ever increasing costs of treating cancer) while tobacco companies remain profitable. Why should the public continue to subsidize tobacco companies? Should we subsidize Big Oil (climate change, pollution health effects -oops)? Should a 2 Liter bottle of Coca Cola cost less than a 2 Liter bottle of water, even though its the same water with extra stuff added, which also happens to lead to long term negative health outcomes?

Great, now I'm depressed.

You already subsidize big oil...like, a lot.

[Zikoris]

@Zikoris, I'm curious why you think that the number of people in low IQ groups is growing?  I used to work in this field, and percentages were always stable, with some evidence that fluid IQ is actually increasing.  An IQ of 85 is considered below normal by most measures, but honestly, you wouldn't be able to tell someone with this number apart from someone with a 100 IQ apart in the vast majority of daily situations.  Once you get below70, that's a different story, and at least there are services for these intellectually disabled folks such that they wouldn't be expected to have to make an independent living.

What I do agree with is that simpler jobs are being either replaced by automation or vanish entirely (see bagger), so that bottom rung jobs may require more intellect than previously.

Eventually, when income equality becomes too great and too many people find themselves shut out of even reasonable prosperity, there is a social revolution/revolt, and then things are reset until the balance becomes upset again.  Then another revolt .........

Basically, your second paragraph is what I'm getting at. The number of people with low IQ is not increasing, but the bottom level of IQ at which people can still work at some sort of job is increasing very quickly. I don't know exactly what that number would be, but I would guess anyone below 100 is going to be in serious trouble soon, if they're not already. New job growth these days is almost entirely in very advanced fields that probably require an IQ of much higher than that to be able to understand the concepts well enough to succeed at the job. I think a whole lot of people are very quickly going to be left behind, completely unable to perform any sort of work. What will happen to them? Who knows.

[JGS1980]

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?

[JGS1980]

@Zikoris, I'm curious why you think that the number of people in low IQ groups is growing?  I used to work in this field, and percentages were always stable, with some evidence that fluid IQ is actually increasing.  An IQ of 85 is considered below normal by most measures, but honestly, you wouldn't be able to tell someone with this number apart from someone with a 100 IQ apart in the vast majority of daily situations.  Once you get below70, that's a different story, and at least there are services for these intellectually disabled folks such that they wouldn't be expected to have to make an independent living.

What I do agree with is that simpler jobs are being either replaced by automation or vanish entirely (see bagger), so that bottom rung jobs may require more intellect than previously.

Eventually, when income equality becomes too great and too many people find themselves shut out of even reasonable prosperity, there is a social revolution/revolt, and then things are reset until the balance becomes upset again.  Then another revolt .........

Basically, your second paragraph is what I'm getting at. The number of people with low IQ is not increasing, but the bottom level of IQ at which people can still work at some sort of job is increasing very quickly. I don't know exactly what that number would be, but I would guess anyone below 100 is going to be in serious trouble soon, if they're not already. New job growth these days is almost entirely in very advanced fields that probably require an IQ of much higher than that to be able to understand the concepts well enough to succeed at the job. I think a whole lot of people are very quickly going to be left behind, completely unable to perform any sort of work. What will happen to them? Who knows.

What happens next? They start voting for right wing ideologues who promise them the moon saying they can make the things the way they used to be, all the while feeding them nonstop resentment and blaming "the others" who did this to them.  Wave after wave of this sort of populism is hitting the Americas, Eastern Europe, Britain right now. I'm afraid this party is far from over.

[Metalcat]

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.

[sherr]

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.

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't.
It is laughable to suggest that consumer price increases "mean nothing to the consumer."
You need to google price elasticity.

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

And you appear to have no sense of proportion. Yes, eventually that is a problem. But primarily the price pressure is driven by competition, not by consumers. Your original assertion that McDonalds would be driven out of business if the minimum wage was increased is demonstrably false, just by looking around, because there are places where there are McDonalds that have a higher minimum wage than the Federal US one.

I'm curious, in your view of the world why are monopolies undesirable? Clearly it can't be because there's no competition to drive prices down and innovation up, which is an essential part of any efficient free market. The customers have already driven prices down all on their own simply by refusing to pay! So what is it? Or maybe they're not undesirable, maybe we should be encouraging monopolies?

[researcher1]

Notably McDonald's has not gone out of business yet even though many jurisdictions throughout the world have in fact increased the minimum wage.

It should be noted that McDonald's already pays workers ABOVE the minimum wage in many cases.
I don't think the argument is about raising the minimum wage by a buck or two.
But rather, the push we've seen by fast food workers to make the minimum wage $15 or more.

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201603/norm-brodsky/15-minimum-wage-consequences-for-businesses.html
"But if $15 per hour becomes our entry-level wage, there will be consequences. Jobs will be lost.
The reason is simple math. Our restaurants will no longer be viable if labor costs rise above 35 percent of revenue. And no, we can't just jack up prices and pass the additional cost along to customers. There are real limits to what people will pay.

We're paying the minimum wage ($9/hr) for entry-level jobs, such as busboy and dishwasher. Other hourly people get more than that, but none as much as $15 per hour. If the minimum rises, not only will we have to pay more to entry-level people, but everyone above them will have to get a raise as well. You can't pay someone who does food preparation what you pay someone who buses the tables and sweeps the floors.

The first options are to automate and outsource, and we're preparing to do both. We have employees taking and inputting orders right now because human contact is important to building customer relationships. But we'll have to cut back on the number of people doing that job."

[Villanelle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavery is much, much cheaper now.

Yes and no.  You rape a few of your slaves every few months, and you have a steady supply of replacement labor, as well as a cash crop. 

I live IN VA, where the climate wasn't good for cotton, so they export of choice was slaves.  Within walking distance of my house is a notorious slave shipping home, where slaves were stored before being shipped south.  Apparently the conditions on those ships were even more brutal than the middle passage, according to the museum's materials.  And one of the owners frequently raped the merchandise, and consequently had more than a few slave children with his DNA. 

break break

I fully support a living wage, but I'm not sure how I think that should be defined.  While I agree that characterizing certain jobs as "high school kid jobs is silly,  I think that not having children and living with roommates is certain still "living", and in fact can be a life full of happiness and satisfaction.  And this may be anathema to the MMM crowd, but I also think that working more than 40 hours isn't unreasonable. 

So if a job pays what my college jobs did--enough to live in a decent apartment, eat decent food, and share a life with a couple of roommates that included being able to attend a movie or concert, having a modest used car, and all the basics?  (No cell phones at the time, but it did cover our Blockbuster memberships and occasional late fees!)  Is that a "living wage"?  I truly don't know how I feel about that. 

If "living wage" is a new car for every licensed driver every 5 years, a fancy cable package, a single family dwelling, 1.75 kids, a golden retriever, and cell phones never more than 2 generations old?  Well, maybe I can't comment on that because I've never lived that lifestyle.    But I don't feel like I'm not living, or living well. 

[Metalcat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavery is much, much cheaper now.

Yes and no.  You rape a few of your slaves every few months, and you have a steady supply of replacement labor, as well as a cash crop. 

I live IN VA, where the climate wasn't good for cotton, so they export of choice was slaves.  Within walking distance of my house is a notorious slave shipping home, where slaves were stored before being shipped south.  Apparently the conditions on those ships were even more brutal than the middle passage, according to the museum's materials.  And one of the owners frequently raped the merchandise, and consequently had more than a few slave children with his DNA. 

break break

I fully support a living wage, but I'm not sure how I think that should be defined.  While I agree that characterizing certain jobs as "high school kid jobs is silly,  I think that not having children and living with roommates is certain still "living", and in fact can be a life full of happiness and satisfaction.  And this may be anathema to the MMM crowd, but I also think that working more than 40 hours isn't unreasonable. 

So if a job pays what my college jobs did--enough to live in a decent apartment, eat decent food, and share a life with a couple of roommates that included being able to attend a movie or concert, having a modest used car, and all the basics?  (No cell phones at the time, but it did cover our Blockbuster memberships and occasional late fees!)  Is that a "living wage"?  I truly don't know how I feel about that. 

If "living wage" is a new car for every licensed driver every 5 years, a fancy cable package, a single family dwelling, 1.75 kids, a golden retriever, and cell phones never more than 2 generations old?  Well, maybe I can't comment on that because I've never lived that lifestyle.    But I don't feel like I'm not living, or living well.

I seriously doubt that will ever be the definition of a living wage unless something truly drastically changed to alter the entire economic system, like a Star Trek type replicator system that completely obliterates supply chains as we know it.

If history has shown us anything, it's that the middle class is a finicky thing to try and maintain.

[researcher1]

While I agree that characterizing certain jobs as "high school kid jobs is silly,  I think that not having children and living with roommates is certain still "living", and in fact can be a life full of happiness and satisfaction.  And this may be anathema to the MMM crowd, but I also think that working more than 40 hours isn't unreasonable. 

So if a job pays what my college jobs did--enough to live in a decent apartment, eat decent food, and share a life with a couple of roommates that included being able to attend a movie or concert, having a modest used car, and all the basics?  Is that a "living wage"?  I truly don't know how I feel about that. 

I think you hit the nail on the head, and more eloquently stated my position.

These no-skill jobs are perfectly fine for the people that you describe above (along with high school/college kids, retired, ect.).
I think it is great if a single person wants to work a few of these jobs and scratch out a modest living.

But many here seem to think these jobs should be able to support entire households, paying for kids/childcare/houses/ect.
That's why I've pushed for them to define what a "living wage" means to them.

The living wage for the hypothetical person noted above is far different than say a single mom with 2 kids.
I don't think you can make businesses bear the burden of their employee's life choices.

[Metalcat]

While I agree that characterizing certain jobs as "high school kid jobs is silly,  I think that not having children and living with roommates is certain still "living", and in fact can be a life full of happiness and satisfaction.  And this may be anathema to the MMM crowd, but I also think that working more than 40 hours isn't unreasonable. 

So if a job pays what my college jobs did--enough to live in a decent apartment, eat decent food, and share a life with a couple of roommates that included being able to attend a movie or concert, having a modest used car, and all the basics?  Is that a "living wage"?  I truly don't know how I feel about that. 

I think you hit the nail on the head, and more eloquently stated my position.

These no-skill jobs are perfectly fine for the people that you describe above (along with high school/college kids, retired, ect.).
I think it is great if a single person wants to work a few of these jobs and scratch out a modest living.

But many here seem to think these jobs should be able to support entire households, paying for kids/childcare/houses/ect.
That's why I've pushed for them to define what a "living wage" means to them.

The living wage for the hypothetical person noted above is far different than say a single mom with 2 kids.
I don't think you can make businesses bear the burden of their employee's life choices.

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.

This I *do* have some expertise on because I used to work in staffing, doing a ton of hiring for lower paying jobs.

[joemandadman189]

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

[Metalcat]

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.

[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.