Minimum Wage - Living Wage - What Wage?

[PointOfViewGun]

Your article is from 2019: it is not relevant to the situation restaurants are facing now. The remaining restaurants which have survived the pandemic-crash up to this point are still hurting badly. I'm not sure how you can write off the impact on restaurant industries being "minimal," especially when they (a. employ a notable percent of the American workforce, and (b. are dependent of disposable incomes (i.e. a well-employed society) to survive.

Any theoretical benefit from more Americans having more money to spend once the $15 wage comes into effect is a moot point if unemployment remains widespread, and as I said, raising the wage on already burdened industries doesn't help Americans regain unemployment. A forced wage increase in the midst of a severe economic downturn will kneecap any recovery effort as more Americans become unemployed without even low-level restaurant work to provide them at least some means of living and an opportunity to rise up some kind of career hierarchy towards better pay. I also don't trust our government to be competent and kind-hearted enough to bother tracking businesses which retain workers in order to bestow tax credits.

Furthermore, I'm not actually convinced that $15 is the acceptable standard, especially when it comes to employment. The minimum wage of European countries like France (10.15 EUR, or $12.06 USD) is frequently used by American wage advocates as a model to aim towards. Now let's look at youth unemployment in those countries, since young people are the people that (A. tend to most likely be working low-wage jobs, and (B. are in most need of work experience to get their careers started.

In 2019, US youth unemployment was at 9.1% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in July of that year. In France, with its higher minimum wage, it was at 19.5%, over twice as much, in 2019.

There may be a lot of different factors surrounding it, such as cultural and other economic aspects (for example, American youths have to pay much more for college than their French counterparts do and many American young people work to at least defray tuition costs). However, I do think that minimum wage does play a part in it, in that it does price workers with few skills and little experience out of work, which then in-turn hurts their career prospects later because they can't get started.

Well, of course you wouldn't be sure about what I say as you seem to ignore chunks of it. The restaurants are not employing those minimum wage workers, aka waiters and waitresses, already regardless of what their wage is. That notable percent of the workforce is already largely unemployed. There are no restaurant work that wait for many other employees. Your position rests on a number of hallow assumptions. Your distrust for restaurants to accurately note their workforce is of no value. There are already various tax credit schemes that are based on workforce.

It's not sensible to compare France, a country with many social services with USA, where social services vastly differ in scope. It's even less sensible to compare youth unemployment in relation to restaurant wages. Are there really fewer restaurants per capita in France because of "high" minimum wages? Are there even fewer restaurants there? Not really. Youth unemployment in Germany was 5.42% in 2019 with a somewhat similar minimum wage to France, though it has been gradually rising. Education in Germany is quite cheap. Not to mention that minimum wage workers pay little income taxes.

In the end, you seem to be OK with individuals continuing to struggle instead of the off chance that restaurants may struggle based on faulty assumptions.

[EmperorBatman999]

Well, of course you wouldn't be sure about what I say as you seem to ignore chunks of it. The restaurants are not employing those minimum wage workers, aka waiters and waitresses, already regardless of what their wage is. That notable percent of the workforce is already largely unemployed. There are no restaurant work that wait for many other employees. Your position rests on a number of hallow assumptions. Your distrust for restaurants to accurately note their workforce is of no value. There are already various tax credit schemes that are based on workforce.

I was speaking in terms of planning and accelerating the recovery once restaurants do begin to re-open or when new restaurants emerge, so that those waiters, waitresses, cooks, bussers, etc. have a place where they can return to work once the pandemic-crash is over. You also somehow conflated my skepticism towards the government as being skepticism towards restauranteurs in terms of reporting their workforce numbers. I do trust restaurants to have the incentive to monitor their own employment numbers, not doing so is just poor bookkeeping - unless they're hiring illegal immigrants to work in the back of the house, which many restaurants here do.

It's not sensible to compare France, a country with many social services with USA, where social services vastly differ in scope. It's even less sensible to compare youth unemployment in relation to restaurant wages. Are there really fewer restaurants per capita in France because of "high" minimum wages? Are there even fewer restaurants there? Not really. Youth unemployment in Germany was 5.42% in 2019 with a somewhat similar minimum wage to France, though it has been gradually rising. Education in Germany is quite cheap. Not to mention that minimum wage workers pay little income taxes.

Germany is something of an outlier, due to the nature of its production economy. Belgium and Ireland (also comparative to Germany and France) had 2019 youth unemployment rates of 15.3% and 13.07% respectively. I will concede that the Dutch are better, with theirs being 6.35%.

The state of the American safety net requires that Americans find employment, that is how it is. And the number of restaurants is not the statistic we're seeking here: we are looking at how much of the economy those restaurants employment, and how choosey they have to be with employees because of the constraints imposed by how much money can be set aside from revenue to cover the cost of labor.

In the end, you seem to be OK with individuals continuing to struggle instead of the off chance that restaurants may struggle based on faulty assumptions.

Oh yes, the classic retort of "You don't care about people!" No, I do care, but I am of the opinion that some employment is better than no employment at all, and in order to facilitate employment especially in a time of mass-joblessness, we have to help opportunity-givers such as restaurants provide those work opportunities. You don't do that by increasing the wage beyond what their constrained revenues can afford.

Unemployment is a debilitating and disempowering social state that causes many people who fall behind, to permanently stay behind: see the dreaded "Resume/CV gap" where people find it harder to get work if they have been unemployed for too long a period of time. Furthermore, as I said, the United States does not have a robust welfare system; it was almost at breaking point in March/April last year from the flood of new welfare applicants, and our national debt is now at $30 trillion dollars. These are all terrible realities for the economy and society of the United States, which is why I keep pushing to get people back to work first, and then be concerned about their wages later.

Additionally, it is worth noting the fallacy that people in income brackets remain in those brackets. Indeed, these positions are not static, and people frequently move from minimum wage to better paying jobs, putting them in a higher income bracket as flesh-and-blood individuals (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 42-43). Just because you made $7.50 at 20 years old often doesn't mean you will only be making $7.50 for the rest of your working experience: you will receive experience and skills that improve your market value, netting you a higher wage as time goes on and you change industries or climb the career ladder. I see the $7.50 jobs a starting point especially for young people where it gives them just a simple chance to work, setting them on a career path by giving them working skills, networks, and experience. When restaurants choose to slash their staff because they can't support paying all of their employees $15 (especially when their revenue has plummeted because of the pandemic-crash), it creates a yet more constricted job market where young people can't enter and laid off people can't get back into the working economy; it will create a giant sea of misfortune that the government cannot fix.

[B. W.]

It's been a long time, but when I started drawing minimum wage I think it was $.75 an hour. Of course gas was cheap in those days. Times have changed.

[irontaino]

It's been a long time, but when I started drawing minimum wage I think it was $.75 an hour. Of course gas was cheap in those days. Times have changed.

Going by the year that $.75 an hour became the minimum wage (1949), you were making the equivalent of 8.29 in 2021 money. Inflation is a thing.

[Gaidin]

Going by the year that $.75 an hour became the minimum wage (1949), you were making the equivalent of 8.29 in 2021 money. Inflation is a thing.

Nonono. B. W. is bragging. I'd love to see him live on $.75 an hour today. Please. I'm sure he'd insist it's impossible. But hey, if you don't have to upgrade minimum wage, he doesn't need more than $.75 an hour?

[PointOfViewGun]

I was speaking in terms of planning and accelerating the recovery once restaurants do begin to re-open or when new restaurants emerge, so that those waiters, waitresses, cooks, bussers, etc. have a place where they can return to work once the pandemic-crash is over. You also somehow conflated my skepticism towards the government as being skepticism towards restauranteurs in terms of reporting their workforce numbers. I do trust restaurants to have the incentive to monitor their own employment numbers, not doing so is just poor bookkeeping - unless they're hiring illegal immigrants to work in the back of the house, which many restaurants here do.

Germany is something of an outlier, due to the nature of its production economy. Belgium and Ireland (also comparative to Germany and France) had 2019 youth unemployment rates of 15.3% and 13.07% respectively. I will concede that the Dutch are better, with theirs being 6.35%.

The state of the American safety net requires that Americans find employment, that is how it is. And the number of restaurants is not the statistic we're seeking here: we are looking at how much of the economy those restaurants employment, and how choosey they have to be with employees because of the constraints imposed by how much money can be set aside from revenue to cover the cost of labor.

Oh yes, the classic retort of "You don't care about people!" No, I do care, but I am of the opinion that some employment is better than no employment at all, and in order to facilitate employment especially in a time of mass-joblessness, we have to help opportunity-givers such as restaurants provide those work opportunities. You don't do that by increasing the wage beyond what their constrained revenues can afford.

Unemployment is a debilitating and disempowering social state that causes many people who fall behind, to permanently stay behind: see the dreaded "Resume/CV gap" where people find it harder to get work if they have been unemployed for too long a period of time. Furthermore, as I said, the United States does not have a robust welfare system; it was almost at breaking point in March/April last year from the flood of new welfare applicants, and our national debt is now at $30 trillion dollars. These are all terrible realities for the economy and society of the United States, which is why I keep pushing to get people back to work first, and then be concerned about their wages later.

Additionally, it is worth noting the fallacy that people in income brackets remain in those brackets. Indeed, these positions are not static, and people frequently move from minimum wage to better paying jobs, putting them in a higher income bracket as flesh-and-blood individuals (Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 42-43). Just because you made $7.50 at 20 years old often doesn't mean you will only be making $7.50 for the rest of your working experience: you will receive experience and skills that improve your market value, netting you a higher wage as time goes on and you change industries or climb the career ladder. I see the $7.50 jobs a starting point especially for young people where it gives them just a simple chance to work, setting them on a career path by giving them working skills, networks, and experience. When restaurants choose to slash their staff because they can't support paying all of their employees $15 (especially when their revenue has plummeted because of the pandemic-crash), it creates a yet more constricted job market where young people can't enter and laid off people can't get back into the working economy; it will create a giant sea of misfortune that the government cannot fix.

Government already keeps taps on a number of tax credit schemes. If you have some skepticism against such schemes you should be able to ground it on facts. Otherwise, its merely hollow dismissal. For many other programs, it works. There is no reason for it not to work for the one I mentioned. Same as you calling Germany an outlier. You are jumping on a conclusion without the much needed supporting factors. Economic and social settings of European nations compared to USA are vastly different to make the comparison you're making while many other factors create holes in your assumptions as I mentioned before. Yet, you chose to merely put some make up on that failed conjecture. We are supposed to believe that Paris lacks much in restaurant business to employ the youth compared to cities in USA...

If you are shifting problems of an industry to their employees you shouldn't be surprised being called out on it. The reality is that raising the minimum wage is unlikely to break the industry the way you argue it would. We're only increasing a portion of their expenses and not even by the same amount throughout USA. Many places already employ a higher than 7.5$ minimum wage. Some even sit near 15$. The effect of making the entire nation jump from a federal minimum wage of 7.5$ to 15$ an hour doesn't create a 7.5$ in reality. Given that some of the most populous cities are already sitting at 15$ the effect would likely me even more minimal. You need to focus your efforts on other measures, not on people making a proper earning.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The market includes the customers. If the majority of the customers want people who do simple manual labor to be able to live with dignity they do make that desire manifest through politics. So, basically, having a minimum wage is what the market decides.

As if virtue signalling manifests some result into existence? As if voting for a democrat solves the problem? Obviously that doesn't work as much as someone may wish it to be so. You want people to live with dignity? The minimum tip you should be giving your server is $15.00. Shove a $20.00 into the Starbucks tip jar. If you're unwilling to do that you don't have the courage of your convictions, and if you can't afford it then let that be a taste of what increasing the minimum wage would do to the cost of goods and services anyway.

[PointOfViewGun]

As if virtue signalling manifests some result into existence? As if voting for a democrat solves the problem? Obviously that doesn't work as much as someone may wish it to be so. You want people to live with dignity? The minimum tip you should be giving your server is $15.00. Shove a $20.00 into the Starbucks tip jar. If you're unwilling to do that you don't have the courage of your convictions, and if you can't afford it then let that be a taste of what increasing the minimum wage would do to the cost of goods and services anyway.

*little did she knew* I have the means to do just that and often do it based on the service I get. However, your math is way off. I don't really need to double their revenue to provide workers with a proper income. Especially with a company like Starbucks, there is little trust that those tips translate to employee earning. In fact, it was a subject of a lawsuit in New York. The cost of the coffee is not 100% labor costs. It's quite tiny if we consider employees that make lower than 15$. Apparently, barista salaries range from 8.76$ to 12.58$. In New York, its 11.50$. On a normal year, Starbucks has an EBITDA of about 4.5/5.5 billion dollars. In 2020, it was little over 1 billion dollars (yes, they still profited during the pandemic). With 6 billion dollars in wages and benefits, their overall labor cost is something like 23% of their revenue based on 2019 numbers. A minimum wage increase to 15$ for that would primarily effect the baristas would only nudge that expense. Let's get off the hysteria bandwagon, shall we?

[Pontifex Maximus]

What are you personally doing to ensure the barista is making a living wage? And only tipping for good service??? What about the poor slacker who has to live in the gutter due to your own arbitraty discrimination about who deserves more money? Do you tip the female workers 25% more than the male workers to make up for the gender wage gap? Lead by example, and maybe you can convince someone that a collective effort will solve the problem instead of relying on government regulation to fix the issue. Corporations are for-profit entities, not charities designed to ensure a certain standard of living for it's employees. Increasing the minimum wage will not suddenly diminish Starbuck Corp's desire to maximize profit. They will strive to maintain maximum revenue at the cost of something else like the number of people they employ, or the benefits they offer or their menu prices. You cannot legislate morality. It would be just sunshine, puppies and rainbows if corporations did care more about their employees, but no amount of government intervention will make that a reality.

[PointOfViewGun]

What are you personally doing to ensure the barista is making a living wage? And only tipping for good service??? What about the poor slacker who has to live in the gutter due to your own arbitraty discrimination about who deserves more money? Do you tip the female workers 25% more than the male workers to make up for the gender wage gap? Lead by example, and maybe you can convince someone that a collective effort will solve the problem instead of relying on government regulation to fix the issue. Corporations are for-profit entities, not charities designed to ensure a certain standard of living for it's employees. Increasing the minimum wage will not suddenly diminish Starbuck Corp's desire to maximize profit. They will strive to maintain maximum revenue at the cost of something else like the number of people they employ, or the benefits they offer or their menu prices. You cannot legislate morality. It would be just sunshine, puppies and rainbows if corporations did care more about their employees, but no amount of government intervention will make that a reality.

Maybe I do. Maybe I give a thousand dollar check to any such person. Maybe I don't. Maybe I shoot them in the head in a back alley. Does it matter? Not really. Your attempts to personalize this accomplishes little. It rather shows a lack of merit in your own arguments as you attempt to put someone on the defensive. Ironically, if we followed that line of thinking in everything we argue there would be carnage here... Corporation are for-profit entities and they should be regulated to be pushed to the right thing. Yes, we can sort of legislate morality, just like we legislated that seat belts as a requirement. In fact, we legislate morality on a daily basis. That's kinda the whole idea of having laws.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The wearing or non wearing of a seatbelt is not a moral issue, and people don't wear seatbelts every minute of every day. You claim to sympathize with the plight of the worker, want the government to force their employers to pay them more, and simultaneously admit you either don't know or don't care if your personal actions contribute to either the improvement of their lives or the continuation of their suffering. You're virtue signalling and it's this sort of empty activism that leads to the election of lukewarm neoliberal virtue signallers like Joe Biden who actually have no interest in resolving the problem so long as they can grift off of its existence. I'm just the one having to point all this out

[PointOfViewGun]

The wearing or non wearing of a seatbelt is not a moral issue, and people don't wear seatbelts every minute of every day. You claim to sympathize with the plight of the worker, want the government to force their employers to pay them more, and simultaneously admit you either don't know or don't care if your personal actions contribute to either the improvement of their lives or the continuation of their suffering. You're virtue signalling and it's this sort of empty activism that leads to the election of lukewarm neoliberal virtue signallers like Joe Biden who actually have no interest in resolving the problem so long as they can grift off of its existence. I'm just the one having to point all this out

Not putting a seat belt on a car seat, as it would be cheaper to do so, is quite a moral issue. Same with having laws against crimes. In principle, you should be against those as well. What I hear now is a tiny violin. You can try to project fallacious arguments on to me all you want. I am free to believe that voting for people that would be more likely to bring minimum wages to standards of today is much more effective than any personal purchasing decision I make. No need to create the kind of hysteria you seem to be banking on. You tried to make it personal. It failed. Miserably. Do you have an actual objection to having a minimum wage that is grounded on reality?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Intentionally missing the point as usual while erroneously interpreting everything as a personal attack against you despite the fact you misgendered me knowing full well my preferred pronouns. One can vote and tip at the same time. Indeed I would argue that in the grand scheme of things your single vote impacts other people way less than your tip does. Don't believe me? Order a pizza and give the delivery person a crisp $100.00 bill and tell him or her to keep the change. The greeting card version of what I'm trying to say is "be the change you want to see in the world." If what I'm saying is making you upset maybe that's because you know it's true: I defeated your argument that forcing every employer in the country to pay $15.00 per hour is a solution.

[B. W.]

Going by the year that $.75 an hour became the minimum wage (1949), you were making the equivalent of 8.29 in 2021 money. Inflation is a thing.

What? 1949? I'm not that old. Better add a decade.

Back to the discussion:

Instead of raising the minimum wage the government needs to quit taxing tips. Taxing tips is ridiculous and is something the Dems started. They literally want to tax everything.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Instead of raising the minimum wage the government needs to quit taxing tips. Taxing tips is ridiculous and is something the Dems started. They literally want to tax everything.

But that will never happen because upward mobility is their biggest nightmare. People need to stay needy so the democrats can promise them crumbs from the table.

[Cope]

It should be for the states or other local authorities to determine the appropriate minimum wage (if any). In a country as large and diverse as the US, a universal figure is unsuitable. The federal government should not be involved.

[PointOfViewGun]

Intentionally missing the point as usual while erroneously interpreting everything as a personal attack against you despite the fact you misgendered me knowing full well my preferred pronouns. One can vote and tip at the same time. Indeed I would argue that in the grand scheme of things your single vote impacts other people way less than your tip does. Don't believe me? Order a pizza and give the delivery person a crisp $100.00 bill and tell him or her to keep the change. The greeting card version of what I'm trying to say is "be the change you want to see in the world." If what I'm saying is making you upset maybe that's because you know it's true: I defeated your argument that forcing every employer in the country to pay $15.00 per hour is a solution.

I'm not sure why you'd think I'd get upset over what you say. Not sure how you defeated my argument. You don't get to convey any meaningful idea when you bank on such hysteria. I'd prefer to give the delivery guy a comfortable percentage and factor in raising the minimum wage in my vote. I still don't see a single argument on why you're against a minimum wage. Opposition is not justification.

[Pontifex Maximus]

You have completely proven my point.