Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
That's much more reasonable than Seattle's plan. If the number is kept within a certain level, like the tying to inflation they suggested, it won't have as much of an impact.
Everything is tied together you know. To imagine it won't have any impact, or that it will hurt only the targets we hope for and not the ones we don't, is just wishful thinking. We constantly bolt things onto the economic plane for our various reasons and sometimes it's good. Other times the plane no longer has lift and then the entire economic engine may falter. (oh no mixed metaphor!) When there is no economic growth, that hurts the poor most of all.
And we actually want some low wage jobs. Traditionally, things like fast food are called starter jobs. The jobs are easy to do, don't add a ton of value, but wind up teaching people how to hold a job. How to apply, interview, how to get there on time and groomed, how to manage weekly pay, how to orally satisfy your bosses, etc. etc. Not all low wage jobs are taking advantage of people, and if they offer a boost to a better job, that's great. How many of us had a first job in fast food? (raises own hand) It paid shit, right? (nods) But it was good for you? Part of life? And when you realized you didn't want to do this your whole life, that was part of it too? A little motivation to make sure you didn't get stuck there. Exactly. S'a good thing.
|
Not having a mimimum wage also has a negative effect - people working full time, sometimes in more than one job and still being too poor to feed their families. That is wrong. And the idea that they are free not to be exploited is ridiculous, if the alternative is starvation and destitution. You can get away with not having a minimum wage if there are adequate support systems in place through benefits - if the choice is between subsistence or taking that job, then fair enough. That's a true choice.
Not having a minimum wage and not having adequate safety nets in place forces people to accept exploitation.
Some jobs are starter jobs, sure - but that's usually about the age of the person, not the nature of the job. A 17 year old, living at home with his parents and earning $8 an hour is one thing. A 40 year old with children to feed doesn't need a 'starter' job, he needs a living wage.
Over here we scale the minimum wage according to age - so a 'starter' job is only a starter job for those at the start of their working life. It's still shit and far too low - and there is growing pressure for the living wage, rather than just a minimum wage.
And if paying a living wage means you can't afford to hire the staff you need, then your business model is broken, your business is not really solvent it is just pretending to be, with the shortfall resting on the backs of people who can't afford to say no.
And yeah - it will probably put up prices of cheap burgers - but that's ok, because if working people are earning that bit more then they'll be able to afford those slightly more expensive burgers.
And if the people who run those burger bars and cheap shops are worried that they won't be able to employ enough people, because it will put the prices up and customers won;t be able to afford what they're selling, then they should be supporting decent welfare payments for those who aren't in work. Because damn near every penny of that welfare gets spent on their products.
Instead, though we (I include the UK in this) opt for a race to the bottom - wages stagnate, and benefits are slashed, so prices have to be slashed to bring in customers, and the low prices mean that wages have to stay low, and so on, and so on. And as low as those wages go, there will always be a pool of people who will take those jobs, because they have no other option if they want to remain fed and housed - and so there is no competition driving wages up.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the scale, remuneration and bonuses go through the roof, and are justified with the idea that in order to hire the best you have to pay high.
There is very little evidence that minimum wages damage employment levels. Very few companies are unable to hire the staff they need because they have to pay a couple of dollars more per hour. It just means they have to find their savings elsewhere. As long as there is no minimum wage and no benefits to speak of, then there is no incentive to look at less palatable savings - it is always easiest to skimp on the workforce.