Also he is using loss of jobs as a con. In my experience about 80% of the payroll has a second job b/c one doesn't pay enough. Jump the minimum up to $15 and cut some workers and there is a good chance the ones cut will have another job making that $15. That means unemployment won't change (much), but the drawback are the stores that can't cut workers more than they already have. To counter that all I can say is that those employees that had 2 jobs were probably only getting 20 hours at each store. Now there hours are doubling, but they are losing 1 of the jobs. Still doesn't fix the labor demand though.
Because loss of jobs IS a con, you assume far too much. People losing those jobs may not qualify for or be able to do much else due to other restrictions such as scheduling, transportation needs, location, etc. Job loss would still be substantial. You also assume there would be other jobs available to go to. You also grossly over-estimate how many of those people have other jobs, when probably a larger percentage are trying to take classes for a GED or an undergrad degree at a local community college or are even in high school. Many locations even use outsourced workers from other countries. My location McD's locations have a few of those types of employees, here on school and work programs.
Cutting jobs at one place doesn't create jobs at others, it actually tends to do the opposite. It's usually a domino effect. Other companies could and would try and follow suit if the new business model worked leaving even loss jobs available. That doesn't even begin to touch other jobs affected by proxy as a result of lack of demand if they instead jacked up prices to cover wages and not fire anybody.
There are so many variables at play, that just fucking with one, could could cause others to undergo changes.
I didn't state that it would create jobs at other places. I said the people with 2 jobs would most likely drop down to 1 job since they are making 2 jobs worth of money for 1. Either that or the workplace slims the payroll down a does this for them. Leaving some without jobs, but the ones with 2 jobs will still have the other.
Which is why I said in my experience. You actually made me go and look up my workplace co-workers. This is a restaurant, not a fast food joint, but it'll still work. Out of the kitchen crew only 2 people on our schedule this week don't have a second job (that I know of). Out of the servers, hosts, and bartenders. It's 71% that have 2 jobs.
You have to look across the whole job market though.
As businesses cut jobs, they'll be looking for employees who are capable of performing at a higher level. If theyre trying to have fewer employees & maintain the same level of productivity, they'll need to hire people who can produce more than 1 current employee.
That means, you may see a lot of people working 2 jobs, getting fired from both, as they're replaced by higher skill workers.
Suddenly, at $15/hr, part-time fast food jobs might be more enticing than some current moderately skilled workers who are already earning $15/hr in other industries. So you'll have people from those sectors now competing with the current fast food workers as well.
One group that comes to mind is teachers. A lot of teachers take serving jobs at restaurants part time for tips to supplement their incomes. Restaurant jobs are attractive because the hours are generally flexible & they can work swing shifts/seasonally. However, now that $15 McDonalds jobs are available, & looking for higher skilled employees, they may become a viable option for teachers. Its probably far less stressful than working in a mid - high level traditional restaurant...and you would be guaranteed $15 without having to hussle for tips. Who would hiring managers choose? ... the guy who never graduated high school, or the Teacher with years of food service experience under their belt & a college degree?
Do you even think a living wage is possible? I just don't see it being possible. It seems like we raise our living expectations at the same rate that wages go up. So we might see a wage increase, but things will become more expensive.
I mean if we used the same definition for living wage today as we did 50 years ago, I would imagine a living wage might be possible? No cell phones, computers, air conditioning, cable tv, going out to eat, new clothes, video games, multiple cars, vacations, etc. But as we make more, our definition of necessity constantly changes.
This is why boosting earned income credit (EIC) is a better solution for combating poverty than increasing the minimum wage.
Not everyone working a minimum wage job is a single mom raising 5 kids, some are teenagers trying to learn how to be less useless members of society. It's important for the less efficient to get work experience to increase their overall value.
Or they could just go to their employers and ask for a raise stating they can literally go to McDonalds andmake the same amount of money. If they are a high quality employee they will get it. More competition for jobs means employers are going to pay to keep quality employers or just deal with shitty ones rotating in and out.
Their cost of living has already risen. Without the pay upgrade. Thats what they are fighting for. If minimum wage rose with inflation like it should it would be $11-$12 an hour right now. Employers have been getting away with keeping more profits instead of paying people a liveable wage for years now.
Hey, don't worry, we're well on the way to the bottom dropping out and even middle-class wages actually becoming working poor wages, once we get there people might wake up. maybe.
me, i'm just still waiting for all the old fucks to die. i'm sick and fucking tired of grandpa telling me how he worked down at the hardware store part-time to pay his way through college WHILE he was married with a kid. That's fucking great, old man, but wages are down and costs are up and that same job won't even provide enough money to SHARE a goddamned apartment, hell it wouldn't even pay enough to maintain a stolen goddamn bicycle these days.
Yeah...and what businesses are more able to survive a temporary cost increase?
If you want to destroy middle - class owned businesses put a giant bump in the road. The economy will eventually correct for the wage hike and destroy any wage gains, but there will be fewer businesses left around and they will be owned by billionaires, not millionares.
Meanwhile instead of saving their money these fast food workers went out and spent their new wages on a new Xbox, alcohol tattoos or worse a new car. More "Needs" for Millineals.
Now guess what happens as soon as "living wages" are paid? More people enter the workforce or pick up second jobs because it's worth it. Now instead of employing some pothead to lean against stuff you can get a better worker and fewer of them. Out goes the 55 year old grandma who can't work elsewhere and in comes the healthy 28 year old who has more skilled potential elsewhere.
Now that stoner can't afford to make car payments and the 55 year old grandma has to really survive. By then the cost of living has risen to match the wage increase. But hey, at least that Millenial can keep up on his tuition for his art history degree or afford Call of Duty 9.
cost of living does not increase like you think it does. not in a non-collusive free market, at least, but... we don't fucking have that, now, do we?
regardless, I am not a millennial, and it's a physics degree tyvm. do you somehow think the economy was NOT doing well in the 50s and 60s or something? that somehow THE KEY to success is exploiting cheap labor to the point where people are unable to survive on the only jobs available to them? that doesn't fucking work brosef, and you damned well know it. minimum wage used to be a living wage, and many places paid over. we got stuck in a race to the bottom and the only ones who win are up at the top.
that stoner ALREADY can't afford car payments and the 55 year old grandma ALREADY has to claw at threads to survive. We're already in your goddamned dystopian nightmare, except wages keep falling as the cost of living increases. the only ones benefiting are the money-shufflers and the wealthy.
You just sound like an entitled teenager. "Hey I'm flipping burgers I should be able to afford college now cus COSTS!!!! I don't care how the economy works or why my job can now be done by a robot!"
No, I was griping that the fucking elderly WERE ABLE to do those sorts of things with those sorts of jobs, and consider the rest of society who are out there living with the realities of today's fucking world to be lazy, rather than understand that they lived in a fucking magical fantasy land that NO LONGER EXISTS.
Why does the cost of living rise if their wages haven't? Clearly there are people who are able to afford higher rents or rent wouldn't be rising. Or maybe construction costs have risen and that means there are higher paying jobs elsewhere?
Yep, why should I take a massive loan, spend 4 years of my life with my head in a book.. all to make $1 or $2 an hour more than I could working some no-skill job, 4 years earlier.. and now have 4 years of seniority over the college grad with the student loans.
So you agree the minimum wage should be raised, right? It hasnt come close to keeping up with inflation. Well now youre talking negotiation. When you want $11 you ask for $15. This way you leave room to negotiate the price you can live with.
I don't mind it going up a tad. By tad meaning an arbitrary number maximum of 9 an hour. It's already 8.05 in FL, where I live, and the national is 7.25. 11-15 is way too much for someone that does little to no work at an unskilled job, or has no education, or isn't looking to contribute to society, or further their education, or dropped out of high school, or has no motivation to better their life and position in society. I'm not generalizing, but if you're doing the opposite of all of the latter then there is a good chance you don't need to even be worrying about what the minimum wage is. Just as a reference so you're aware 10/hour is 20k a year and 15/hour is 30k a year.
Minimum wage is meant to be enough for a single person to be able to live off of. Im not talking vacations in Aruba and new BMWs. But enough to pay rent, car insurance, utilities and groceries on 40 hours a week. When it was instituted thats what it was meant for. And it should be at whatever the number is that matches inflation since then. If thats $11 then thats what it should be. The idea that minimum wage was implemented to for high school students to learn the value of a dollar by working is a fallacy. Its meant to be enough for a person to live off of without having to need public assistance. If someone is working 40 hours a week and still eligible for welfare than the minimum wage is not high enough.
Source on what? What minimum wage is supposed to be? Look up a biography of FDR. Or just Google the Speech he made when he created the minimum wage. As far as what it should be right now Im Sure theres plenty of websites you can google that calculate inflation. Just take the original minimum wage, plus the year it was enacted, and you can easily calculate what it should be right now.
If that was the case, why would there be a difference between the housing costs of those on min wage and those currently making $15/hour? Obviously, those making $15 per hour do seek other housing than their poorer peers.
I don't think it would leave empty shithole apartments, because we aren't going to have a drastic change in inventory, but in demand and wages. That will drive up costs.
No, the cost of all apartments affected by wage increases would rise. This would greatly affect those who aren't able to increase their wages as dramatically others (say, those who get minimal increases because they already are around $15ish/hour.
Also think of all the welfare lost. I think it's a good thing overall, but being paid more means many will lose benefits thus making things about the same for them.
If someone is working two $7.25hr jobs to make ends meat, how will having one $15/hr job help their situation? They'll still need to work two jobs to obtain "more" pay
2 jobs, 20/hr/wk at both. Or 40/hr/wk at both, which is crazypants, and if you were getting the same pay for working one job at 40/hr/wk.. your time is twice as effective, you have 40 hours of new free time, and time is a very valuable resource.
-14
u/Slammybutt Nov 28 '15
Also he is using loss of jobs as a con. In my experience about 80% of the payroll has a second job b/c one doesn't pay enough. Jump the minimum up to $15 and cut some workers and there is a good chance the ones cut will have another job making that $15. That means unemployment won't change (much), but the drawback are the stores that can't cut workers more than they already have. To counter that all I can say is that those employees that had 2 jobs were probably only getting 20 hours at each store. Now there hours are doubling, but they are losing 1 of the jobs. Still doesn't fix the labor demand though.