minimum wage

[Dude#1279435]

My Randian influence use to make me think we didn't need it. The free market will take care of it and decide a livable wage. However, I'm coming to see that if we did that there isn't sufficient reason to believe that would happen. Obviously some would, but some might not. If Shapiro is getting excited about a low minimum wage, well..... any thoughts?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

on the subject of the so-called "free" market:

To reverse inequality, we need to expose the myth of the ‘free market’

We need an informed public that sees through the poisonous myth billionaires want us to believe: that income is a measure of your market worth

www.theguardian.com

and I'll also quote one of Reddit commenters:

The real myth is what Free Market is usually taken to mean.
One of the things that bother a me most is how some people equate Free Market to "no government intervention". Yes government intervation can sometimes get in the way of free market, but sometimes it can restore the free market.
Free Market is a concept that requires a series of assumption. The most important of which is that the market must be competitive, with many firms selling roughlg homogéneos goods. There should also be no assymetry of information between market participants. If a government acts to break a monopoly that is the government enforcing a free market.
Sometimes you don't even want a free market, like in the case where there is some externality like pollution. There, you need government intervention to align private and public costs and benefits.
So please, use Free Market in the correct context, and stop playing this ideological war fare that leads nowhere.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm all for raising the minimum wage , but I think we need a tiered system based on age. For those 18 (20?) and under a $15/hr minimum will probably restrict their job opportunities, and part-time jobs for teens I think are often great development experiences. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects people 40 years old and older.)

 

[GO-NAD!]

on the subject of the so-called "free" market:

To reverse inequality, we need to expose the myth of the ‘free market’

We need an informed public that sees through the poisonous myth billionaires want us to believe: that income is a measure of your market worth

www.theguardian.com

and I'll also quote one of Reddit commenters:

CEO in public: We believe in free markets and encourage competition. It fuels innovation and provides the best products at the best prices for our customers.

CEO in private: We need to squash our competitors and get a monopoly in the market! If we can't get that, we'll form a cartel and fix prices!

 

[panteragstk]

I'm all for raising the minimum wage , but I think we need a tiered system based on age. For those 18 (20?) and under a $15/hr minimum will probably restrict their job opportunities, and part-time jobs for teens I think are often great development experiences. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects people 40 years old and older.)

I sort of agree on the tiered system, but I don't think it should be based on age. I think it should be more of a cost of living thing. If you can have a decent living on minimum wage in your area, great. If you can't, it needs to go up. There are plenty of 17-18 year olds that are financially independent of their parents. Minimum wage needs to be spoken of for what it is: "the least amount of money you are legally allowed to pay someone". There are a lot of companies that are saying they'll go out of business if they increast the minimum wage. Are those companies only in business because they are paying such low wages? If that's the case, then they've got bigger problems than what the legal limit of low wage is.

I think pay should be based on the job being done. People shouldn't get paid less because they are young. People with skills to do a job should get paid based on those skills and whether or not they can do that job. However, we need truly entry level jobs too though. Having entry level jobs with high skill requirements with low pay makes no sense. Makes it very difficult to get into certain jobs.

I'm betting there are a few people out there that have been welding for 5+ years and are only 18. I've known people like that. They get hired for their skill level, not age.

Now, do I think there should be jobs that "young" people do? Oh yeah. Grocery store baggers and cashiers are excellent jobs for young folks. Not all that difficult, anyone can be trained to do it and they get work experience. Sounds great Right? Well, covid changed my opinion on that in that those people are actually doing a service that is massively undervalued by "normal" folks. I'm not sure what they deserve pay wise because their job is so much more important than I ever gave them credit for, and I used to do that job.

 

[panteragstk]

CEO in public: We believe in free markets and encourage competition. It fuels innovation and provides the best products at the best prices for our customers.

CEO in private: We need to squash our competitors and get a monopoly in the market! If we can't get that, we'll form a cartel and fix prices!

Hell, for the airlines and cable companies, it's not even in private.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

CEO in public: We believe in free markets and encourage competition. It fuels innovation and provides the best products at the best prices for our customers.

CEO in private: We need to squash our competitors and get a monopoly in the market! If we can't get that, we'll pay off lobby politicians to do it for us!

ftfy

 

[GO-NAD!]

I'm all for raising the minimum wage , but I think we need a tiered system based on age. For those 18 (20?) and under a $15/hr minimum will probably restrict their job opportunities, and part-time jobs for teens I think are often great development experiences. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects people 40 years old and older.)

I agree...somewhat. I have to wonder, when it comes to minimum wage jobs, would we all of a sudden find that employers will take nobody but teenagers?

 

[Irvrobinson]

CEO in private: We need to squash our competitors and get a monopoly in the market! If we can't get that, we'll form a cartel and fix prices!

For the most part this isn't true in my experience, or it's a gross exaggeration. In the US at least, anti-trust laws are obnoxious enough that sometimes a company will help fund a competitor so as not to be a true monopoly (e.g. Microsoft investing in Apple in 1997). Even subtle bad acting can result in costly lawsuits and fines (e.g. Intel paying Dell not to use AMD CPUs). Amazon is in the news recently for copying designs of some consumer products listed in their marketplace and using their volume buying to sell them cheaper than the original, but that's nickel and dime stuff. The closest US company to being a monopoly currently is probably Google with internet search, with about 90% market share, but based on current laws it's a tough argument to make, because Google gives away search capability for free, and US anti-trust laws have financial harm provisions. CEOs aren't as dumb as you think. Well, at least not in anti-trust matters. The VW smog testing cheating case for diesels does make me wonder if recreational drugs were involved.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I agree...somewhat. I have to wonder, when it comes to minimum wage jobs, would we all of a sudden find that employers will take nobody but teenagers?

Unlikely. Have you ever managed teenage males before?

 

[highfigh]

I'm all for raising the minimum wage , but I think we need a tiered system based on age. For those 18 (20?) and under a $15/hr minimum will probably restrict their job opportunities, and part-time jobs for teens I think are often great development experiences. (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects people 40 years old and older.)

Fast food is the most common area where people talk about the $15/hr wage but with the huge amount of wasted food and the high cost of being engaged in that kind of business, it's not going to be a calm, peaceful discussion. The workers don't seem to understand that going from $10/hr to $15/hr will cause the price of fast food to skyrocket, yet many people at that wage level eat a lot of it because it's A) convenient, B) it's filling and C) it's cheaper and less time-consuming than buying/preparing/cooking groceries. I could spend $3 on fast food for every meal and it would be enough. It would eventually kill me, but I wouldn't go hungry. I would also save a helluva lot of money.

I expect kiosks to replace a lot of people at fast food places.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

@Irv how about local broadband internet providers. The vast majority of the US has only one choice for fast (at least 25mbps down) wired internet.

 

[highfigh]

@Irv how about local broadband internet providers. The vast majority of the US has only one choice for fast (at least 25mbps down) wired internet.

You're referring to rural and small town areas, right? Most cities have at least two options- some phone company and a cable TV provider. Obviously, each are able to provide both, but anyone near a major city has options for wired service. It's too bad Satellite is so expensive, although some areas are installing this and distributing it via subscription to the residents who have been under-served because of the low population density and difficult task of installing cable.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I sort of agree on the tiered system, but I don't think it should be based on age. I think it should be more of a cost of living thing. If you can have a decent living on minimum wage in your area, great. If you can't, it needs to go up. There are plenty of 17-18 year olds that are financially independent of their parents. Minimum wage needs to be spoken of for what it is: "the least amount of money you are legally allowed to pay someone". There are a lot of companies that are saying they'll go out of business if they increast the minimum wage. Are those companies only in business because they are paying such low wages? If that's the case, then they've got bigger problems than what the legal limit of low wage is.

Cost of living tiering is probably too complicated to get through Congress and be enforceable.

I think pay should be based on the job being done. People shouldn't get paid less because they are young. People with skills to do a job should get paid based on those skills and whether or not they can do that job. However, we need truly entry level jobs too though. Having entry level jobs with high skill requirements with low pay makes no sense. Makes it very difficult to get into certain jobs.

I'm betting there are a few people out there that have been welding for 5+ years and are only 18. I've known people like that. They get hired for their skill level, not age.

Skill-based pay already happens. To take your example, high-skill welders can often make over $100K regardless of age, especially if they have specific experience with certain materials or assemblies (oil pipelines). The problem is how they get trained (schools or OJT) and what their starting wages are. As someone who has tried welding on cars and stuff, it is also as much artistry as skill, and if you do it as a career you're breathing obnoxious fumes and steadiness can be compromised as you get older.

Now, do I think there should be jobs that "young" people do? Oh yeah. Grocery store baggers and cashiers are excellent jobs for young folks. Not all that difficult, anyone can be trained to do it and they get work experience. Sounds great Right? Well, covid changed my opinion on that in that those people are actually doing a service that is massively undervalued by "normal" folks. I'm not sure what they deserve pay wise because their job is so much more important than I ever gave them credit for, and I used to do that job.

Grocery stores are how I started out. Pushing shopping carts, bagging groceries, stocking shelves, working produce prep. When I was in high school I would report for work at 6:00am to wash floors, go to school at about 8:00, and be back in the afternoon and evening to stock shelves. I can't imagine being where I am today without those early work experiences.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

You're referring to rural and small town areas, right? Most cities have at least two options- some phone company and a cable TV provider. Obviously, each are able to provide both, but anyone near a major city has options for wired service. It's too bad Satellite is so expensive, although some areas are installing this and distributing it via subscription to the residents who have been under-served because of the low population density and difficult task of installing cable.

a) Let me just get this out of the way: Any service which isn't hard-wired - sucks or at the very least has a significant limitation (that includes Starlink which never meant to be used in urban deployments)
b) Phone company's internet is shitty DSL, which in most cases left to rot and at only lucky ones get 3mbps down which isn't reasonably fast internet in 2021.
c) As for rural/urban - no I mean everywhere. I used to live in gobsmack middle of Brooklyn, a fairly decent part of in fact. By the time I left Brooklyn,NYC in 2015 I still only had Optimum as the sole option for broadband. This has nothing to do with population density excuses.

 

[Irvrobinson]

@Irv how about local broadband internet providers. The vast majority of the US has only one choice for fast (at least 25mbps down) wired internet.

Good point. Comcast and I have a long and sordid history. But local utility monopolies are one of the few exceptions I can think of.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You're referring to rural and small town areas, right? Most cities have at least two options- some phone company and a cable TV provider. Obviously, each are able to provide both, but anyone near a major city has options for wired service. It's too bad Satellite is so expensive, although some areas are installing this and distributing it via subscription to the residents who have been under-served because of the low population density and difficult task of installing cable.

Not in the several cities where I've lived. For broadband cable I've usually had one option. I won't use DSL (CenturyLink). In Irvine for broadband there was Cox and Google Fiber, but I didn't need gigabit speeds so I stuck with Cox. But Cox was only $50/month for 100mbps support, while now in my primary home in the southwest Comcast thinks they're giving me a huge bargain at $90/month. BSA did hit a nerve with me.

 

[highfigh]

Good point. Comcast and I have a long and sordid history. But local utility monopolies are one of the few exceptions I can think of.

There's a reason people call it 'Comcrap'.

 

[highfigh]

a) Let me just get this out of the way: Any service which isn't hard-wired - sucks or at the very least has a significant limitation (that includes Starlink which never meant to be used in urban deployments)
b) Phone company's internet is shitty DSL, which in most cases left to rot and at only lucky ones get 3mbps down which isn't reasonably fast internet in 2021.
c) As for rural/urban - no I mean everywhere. I used to live in gobsmack middle of Brooklyn, a fairly decent part of in fact. By the time I left Brooklyn,NYC in 2015 I still only had Optimum as the sole option for broadband. This has nothing to do with population density excuses.

You couldn't just write "I disagree"?

I have a friend in Central Missouri and a new internet service was recently installed, using Ubiquity wireless equipment. Throughput and speed are significantly better and the ATT cable service wasn't able to provide anything useful. His previous internet provider was Hughsnet, which was OK, but the speed wasn't great and it would go down in bad weather. Since the new system is peer to peer with a tower across the river, it won't have the same problems.

Major city leaders being the money-grubbing whores they are, is it not possible that the sole provider paid enough that no other would be allowed in Brooklyn?

 

[highfigh]

Not in the several cities where I've lived. For broadband cable I've usually had one option. I won't use DSL (CenturyLink). In Irvine for broadband there was Cox and Google Fiber, but I didn't need gigabit speeds so I stuck with Cox. But Cox was only $50/month for 100mbps support, while now in my primary home in the southwest Comcast thinks they're giving me a huge bargain at $90/month. BSA did hit a nerve with me.

You won't use DSL, but it WAS an option, right?