Biden seeking a $15 an hour minimum wage in his Covid relief proposal (1 Viewer)

[Incumbent]

If there’s already a Biden economy thread, I can add this there. It could have gone in the Covid thread, but the impact of this would extend well beyond that topic.

Well past time to raise the minimum wage, which hasn’t been increased since 2009.

Biden to seek $15 minimum wage in COVID-19 proposal

President-elect Joe Biden will include a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 as part of a COVID-19 relief package, the first major legislation of his presidency.Biden is expected to a…

thehill.com

 

[Saint by the Bay]

It seems like there are a ton of assumptions embedded in that one paragraph.

For example, there's the assumption of an economy that is structured that way, with a progressive career path for everyone. Is that reality? Is the economy actually structured so that for every single young person, in school or otherwise working to better themselves working as a fast food worker, or grocery shelf stacker, etc., there are also enough higher level jobs? That is, to put it another way, as that generation ages, are there consistently the same number of higher skilled jobs as there were entry level jobs, so that they can all move up in life?

We don't have fully managed economies, so they're not deliberately set up like that. Is there something that forces them to be so, or are they, in reality, not? And if not, isn't treating those jobs - which from my point of view are some of the most essential, fundamental jobs there are in their nature, given the importance of getting food to people - as work that isn't valuable enough to be able to live off inherently wrong?

The only thing that could be considered assumption is the last sentence of my paragraph. The first is factual about the pre-WW2 American economy.

On the second, I think we have to look at how those evolved. Economies aren't static, but even in the 50's and 60's a burger flipper at McDonald's wasn't making a "living wage" and they were primarily staffed by young people and/or minorities. At the time they were making about .75 an hour. When you take inflation into account it's still a higher wage than today, but even then it wasn't enough to take care of a family. In the 60's it went up to $1 on average, still not enough to "live" off $40 a week. 70's we are talking about something like $1.50 or $1.60. Still well below career type wages. In fact, there has never been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage. Even before supermarkets, stock boys in the local stores were generally young family of the owner or kids in the neighborhood. These were never living wage long term jobs unless your future was inheriting the store.

Now, as you point out the question becomes are there enough higher level jobs. I think the answer is yes, but I don't have the stats to back that up. I just know when I look at job listings it feels like there's a lot out there, various times of economic distress being the exception. The problem really is jobs have become so specialized it's harder to fit the role than it was in, say, the 70's. I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole because I think it detracts from the main point, but I don't really see the problem right now is the "floor". People at the floor have always struggled to be fiscally independent. This is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint though. Any job that almost anyone can do will be valued less than a job that a limited number of people can do. The real problem is there is a segment of society that aren't growing career and skills-wise for a variety of reasons.

That is where I think we should be focusing. Instead of getting the 30 yo mother of two working at McDonalds more money, let's help her get to a position the only thing she's qualified for isn't McDonalds. I think as a society we should help her get there because it lifts up the entire community. However, even at $15 we aren't creating a"living wage". That is still pretty intense poverty and I firmly believe it's attacking the problem from the wrong side (making the job "good" instead of focusing on upward mobility for the people in those jobs).

 

[Dragon]

The only thing that could be considered assumption is the last sentence of my paragraph. The first is factual about the pre-WW2 American economy.

On the second, I think we have to look at how those evolved. Economies aren't static, but even in the 50's and 60's a burger flipper at McDonald's wasn't making a "living wage" and they were primarily staffed by young people and/or minorities. At the time they were making about .75 an hour. When you take inflation into account it's still a higher wage than today, but even then it wasn't enough to take care of a family. In the 60's it went up to $1 on average, still not enough to "live" off $40 a week. 70's we are talking about something like $1.50 or $1.60. Still well below career type wages. In fact, there has never been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage. Even before supermarkets, stock boys in the local stores were generally young family of the owner or kids in the neighborhood. These were never living wage long term jobs unless your future was inheriting the store.

Now, as you point out the question becomes are there enough higher level jobs. I think the answer is yes, but I don't have the stats to back that up. I just know when I look at job listings it feels like there's a lot out there, various times of economic distress being the exception. The problem really is jobs have become so specialized it's harder to fit the role than it was in, say, the 70's. I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole because I think it detracts from the main point, but I don't really see the problem right now is the "floor". People at the floor have always struggled to be fiscally independent. This is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint though. Any job that almost anyone can do will be valued less than a job that a limited number of people can do. The real problem is there is a segment of society that aren't growing career and skills-wise for a variety of reasons.

That is where I think we should be focusing. Instead of getting the 30 yo mother of two working at McDonalds more money, let's help her get to a position the only thing she's qualified for isn't McDonalds. I think as a society we should help her get there because it lifts up the entire community. However, even at $15 we aren't creating a"living wage". That is still pretty intense poverty and I firmly believe it's attacking the problem from the wrong side (making the job "good" instead of focusing on upward mobility for the people in those jobs).

Well now we're talking free education? or how do you asume someone working at at fastfood place for less than it cost to have a place to live and put food on the table could ever afford to pay for college - or even to eat while studying? How do you suppose that upward movement should take place?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Well now we're talking free education? or how do you asume someone working at at fastfood place for less than it cost to have a place to live and put food on the table could ever afford to pay for college - or even to eat while studying? How do you suppose that upward movement should take place?

I'm more of a fan of free trade schools. I think we are already putting too much emphasis on 4-year degrees as the only way into the middle class. I think every high school should have a trade school program that allows students in their Jr and Sr year to spend 1-2 class periods attending a trade school that will put a trade certification in their hands by graduation. We have something like that here in Katy called Miller Career Institute, but what I'm talking is kind of the next step up from it. https://www.katyisd.org/campus/MCTC/Pages/About-Us.aspx It should be funded as part of the school district.

That will even help the kids going to college. I think they'd much rather work through school as a refrigerator repair tech, pharmacy assistant, or mechanic than at Burger King.

I also think if you have an income below a certain amount (let's say $15 an hour for sake of argument) that you can qualify to attend the same programs regardless of age. Combine it with childcare assistance, and we can help people gain marketable skills. Heck, if you really like it at McDonalds go ahead and do restaurant management to get promoted to manager quicker.

I really think we have to get out of the "4-year degree for everyone" mindset. Heck, even a number of computer certifications can get you a job in my industry without a degree. Free college isn't necessarily the answer, but free job training of some sort (along with subsidized childcare) probably is. I'm not against some sort of free college in general, but I don't think it actually solves the unskilled workers issue because many of them don't have 4-6 years to dedicate to the pursuit because of more immediate things to address (families to support, etc.). It is more of a way to move the working class to the middle class than the poor to the working or middle class.

 

[The moose]

The only thing that could be considered assumption is the last sentence of my paragraph. The first is factual about the pre-WW2 American economy.

On the second, I think we have to look at how those evolved. Economies aren't static, but even in the 50's and 60's a burger flipper at McDonald's wasn't making a "living wage" and they were primarily staffed by young people and/or minorities. At the time they were making about .75 an hour. When you take inflation into account it's still a higher wage than today, but even then it wasn't enough to take care of a family. In the 60's it went up to $1 on average, still not enough to "live" off $40 a week. 70's we are talking about something like $1.50 or $1.60. Still well below career type wages. In fact, there has never been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage. Even before supermarkets, stock boys in the local stores were generally young family of the owner or kids in the neighborhood. These were never living wage long term jobs unless your future was inheriting the store.

Now, as you point out the question becomes are there enough higher level jobs. I think the answer is yes, but I don't have the stats to back that up. I just know when I look at job listings it feels like there's a lot out there, various times of economic distress being the exception. The problem really is jobs have become so specialized it's harder to fit the role than it was in, say, the 70's. I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole because I think it detracts from the main point, but I don't really see the problem right now is the "floor". People at the floor have always struggled to be fiscally independent. This is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint though. Any job that almost anyone can do will be valued less than a job that a limited number of people can do. The real problem is there is a segment of society that aren't growing career and skills-wise for a variety of reasons.

That is where I think we should be focusing. Instead of getting the 30 yo mother of two working at McDonalds more money, let's help her get to a position the only thing she's qualified for isn't McDonalds. I think as a society we should help her get there because it lifts up the entire community. However, even at $15 we aren't creating a"living wage". That is still pretty intense poverty and I firmly believe it's attacking the problem from the wrong side (making the job "good" instead of focusing on upward mobility for the people in those jobs).

That is a shirt load of typing to say you think all burger flipper in the world deserve to live below the poverty level.


You see the one thing you failed to point out is that fry jockey or burger flipper in the 50s 60s and 70s did not live below the poverty level with that wage cuz they were being paid more and actually had real shifts.

The poverty level in 1960 was a whopping 1500 bucks. By 1970 it still was not 2k. So an working person at the minimum wage made above the poverty level.

The factor you are missing is it IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL for the minimum wage. We as a nation need people above the poverty level that work plain and simple.

If they don't get above the poverty level we all make up that diffence one way or another.

I would rather a burger costs a couple bucks more than your uncle stocking the fridge and helping so much with rent.

But I guess we all look at shirt different ways.

I guess it is easy to blame poor people for being poor when the system forces the working poor to get government help.

 

[SystemShock]

I'm more of a fan of free trade schools. I think we are already putting too much emphasis on 4-year degrees as the only way into the middle class. I think every high school should have a trade school program that allows students in their Jr and Sr year to spend 1-2 class periods attending a trade school that will put a trade certification in their hands by graduation. We have something like that here in Katy called Miller Career Institute, but what I'm talking is kind of the next step up from it. https://www.katyisd.org/campus/MCTC/Pages/About-Us.aspx It should be funded as part of the school district.

That will even help the kids going to college. I think they'd much rather work through school as a refrigerator repair tech, pharmacy assistant, or mechanic than at Burger King.

I also think if you have an income below a certain amount (let's say $15 an hour for sake of argument) that you can qualify to attend the same programs regardless of age. Combine it with childcare assistance, and we can help people gain marketable skills. Heck, if you really like it at McDonalds go ahead and do restaurant management to get promoted to manager quicker.

I really think we have to get out of the "4-year degree for everyone" mindset. Heck, even a number of computer certifications can get you a job in my industry without a degree. Free college isn't necessarily the answer, but free job training of some sort (along with subsidized childcare) probably is. I'm not against some sort of free college in general, but I don't think it actually solves the unskilled workers issue because many of them don't have 4-6 years to dedicate to the pursuit because of more immediate things to address (families to support, etc.). It is more of a way to move the working class to the middle class than the poor to the working or middle class.

Especially in the tech industry, specialization is VERY high. You definitely don't need a 4 year degree to be a sysadmin or write code. Myself, I switched to tech in the late 90's with a certification from George Washington University that took 6 months to get. Back then I was the everything-man for anything related to my specialization (Solaris OS/SPARC architecture/stack); the last 5 years I've been doing just OS patching and coding automation.

The one argument I'd make against just focusing on trade schools: one would miss out on the rounded education you get from a 4 year college. As anti-religion as I am, I do value the rounded education I received from Loyola.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Especially in the tech industry, specialization is VERY high. You definitely don't need a 4 year degree to be a sysadmin or write code. Myself, I switched to tech in the late 90's with a certification from George Washington University that took 6 months to get. Back then I was the everything-man for anything related to my specialization (Solaris OS/SPARC architecture/stack); the last 5 years I've been doing just OS patching and coding automation.

The one argument I'd make against just focusing on trade schools: one would miss out on the rounded education you get from a 4 year college. As anti-religion as I am, I do value the rounded education I received from Loyola.

Oh, I agree. I don't think trade schools replace college as much as give a quicker path to fiscal stability than college generally offers There's a lot more a college education offers than just a better job.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

That is a shirt load of typing to say you think all burger flipper in the world deserve to live below the poverty level.


You see the one thing you failed to point out is that fry jockey or burger flipper in the 50s 60s and 70s did not live below the poverty level with that wage cuz they were being paid more and actually had real shifts.

The poverty level in 1960 was a whopping 1500 bucks. By 1970 it still was not 2k. So an working person at the minimum wage made above the poverty level.

The factor you are missing is it IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL for the minimum wage. We as a nation need people above the poverty level that work plain and simple.

If they don't get above the poverty level we all make up that diffence one way or another.

I would rather a burger costs a couple bucks more than your uncle stocking the fridge and helping so much with rent.

But I guess we all look at shirt different ways.

I guess it is easy to blame poor people for being poor when the system forces the working poor to get government help.

Is that really all you got out of my two long posts on the subject? That I'm "blaming the poor"? I talk about free job training, free child care, that we should help them because helping them is part of the community. Out of all that all you got was sCReW dA' pOe!

I grew up dirt poor eating government cheese and mayonnaise sandwiches. We went through long stretches sleeping in my mother's car. At 15 I lived in an alleyway behind a car dealership on Roswell Rd. in Sandy Springs. On the good days, I'd get enough people tipping me for putting their groceries in their car I could buy a meal and cup of coffee and get it refilled at IHOP all night to stay out of the cold. Those were the good days.

So I know poor, and I'm sympathetic to the poor. I'm also aware of how hard it is to get out of it. Most people I grew up with never did. That's why my perspective on it is to help people do better than those jobs and move into careers with an actual future instead of artificially inflating the economic value of the position they are in. Am I right? I don't know, but not one thing I said even comes close to blaming the poor and saying they don't deserve a living wage.

 

[MT15]

Nobody works at McDonald’s for minimum wage now, all the fast food places are already offering over $10 an hour around me to start. $7.50 is an actual joke, and I’m not sure who is actually paying that anymore. So, the minimum wage needs to be fixed, it’s ridiculous right now.

We can certainly afford to start raising the minimum wage to reflect reality without even causing a ripple in the economy. IMO. It should have been raised incrementally over the years rather than left alone like it has been, it’s inexcusable negligence on Congress’ part. Once again, IMO.

If I seem cranky, it’s because I just watched Brady get escorted down the field by the refs again, and the half time show was shirtty.

 

[The moose]

Is that really all you got out of my two long posts on the subject? That I'm "blaming the poor"? I talk about free job training, free child care, that we should help them because helping them is part of the community. Out of all that all you got was sCReW dA' pOe!

I grew up dirt poor eating government cheese and mayonnaise sandwiches. We went through long stretches sleeping in my mother's car. At 15 I lived in an alleyway behind a car dealership on Roswell Rd. in Sandy Springs. On the good days, I'd get enough people tipping me for putting their groceries in their car I could buy a meal and cup of coffee and get it refilled at IHOP all night to stay out of the cold. Those were the good days.

So I know poor, and I'm sympathetic to the poor. I'm also aware of how hard it is to get out of it. Most people I grew up with never did. That's why my perspective on it is to help people do better than those jobs and move into careers with an actual future instead of artificially inflating the economic value of the position they are in. Am I right? I don't know, but not one thing I said even comes close to blaming the poor and saying they don't deserve a living wage.

That is a crock of shirt brother.

So you maga spewing soul that you are now want more FREE education for the working poor in the trades. I call that socialist bullshirt not maga thinking.

The sob story was great yet has not one thing to do with fixing the amount of people that do work and live below the poverty level. When you were dirt poor being above the poverty level was not as high a hill to climb as it is now by a long forking shot.

The other problem is the way american companies have been allowed to employ people part time is the biggest problem for the working poor. When the nations largest employers only offer part time for the vast majority of their workers keeps them poor and keeps us paying the difference in government subsidies.

So yep let's teach people to fix air conditioning or code in between the two part time jobs they have that don't pay the bills now.

The fix is simple pay a living wage.

 

[Roofgardener]

.....I don't want to hear that nonsense the minimum wage should go up the exact same rate as inflation every year actually because the cost of living goes up that yearly.

Hmm... isn't that a kinda circular argument ? AFter all, if you increase the national minimum wage, then you increase inflation, and hence the cost of living ?

 

[RobF]

The only thing that could be considered assumption is the last sentence of my paragraph. The first is factual about the pre-WW2 American economy.

There are other things, but do note I said 'it seems like' there are assumptions; they may not actually be assumptions, but on the basis of what you've said here, it's not clear that they aren't. I've got a minute, so I'll expand on it a bit.

The first part of your post was not solely about the pre-WW2 American economy. You were replying to @cuddlemonkey's quote of FDR, and stated, "in general he wasn’t referring to minorities who did the overwhelming majority of menial labor jobs." That's not merely a 'factual statement about the WW2 American economy', that's a statement that FDR wasn't referring to minorities doing menial labour jobs in his speech about changing the economy from what it was to what he thought it should be.

Given that, as @cuddlemonkey quoted, FDR explicitly stated, "I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry" and "I mean all workers," without something to support the notion that FDR actually meant the principles he was describing should apply to, "all workers, except those guys, you know the ones I mean", it would seem that there may be some assumptions in there.

An argument could be made that FDR's intent must have been in line with the times, in which (for example) ostensibly neutral support of unions and higher wages was used to effectively exclude African Americans from work in a time when racist employers would only hire them if they could pay them less, particularly in the South. But that would still be an assumption, and a counter-argument would point to things like the existence and influence of the so-called Black Cabinet and FDR's subsequent executive orders against discriminatory hiring to be taken into account.

On the second, I think we have to look at how those evolved. Economies aren't static, but even in the 50's and 60's a burger flipper at McDonald's wasn't making a "living wage" and they were primarily staffed by young people and/or minorities. At the time they were making about .75 an hour. When you take inflation into account it's still a higher wage than today, but even then it wasn't enough to take care of a family. In the 60's it went up to $1 on average, still not enough to "live" off $40 a week. 70's we are talking about something like $1.50 or $1.60. Still well below career type wages. In fact, there has never been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage. Even before supermarkets, stock boys in the local stores were generally young family of the owner or kids in the neighborhood. These were never living wage long term jobs unless your future was inheriting the store.

Right, but FDR never succeeded in introducing the principles he described in that 1933 speech. The National Industry Recovery Act he made that statement in connection with didn't achieve that. It aimed to make the 'change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment' through 'an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe', but that didn't actually happen. All employers did not subscribe, even where they did it wasn't well enforced particularly in some regions, and the NIRA itself was dead two years later, both politically, and due to being struck down by the Supreme Court.

The federal minimum wage wasn't introduced until 1938 with the heavily compromised Fair Labor Standards Act, and that wasn't FDR's living wage either. FDR described it as a start (specifically, he said it "starts us toward a better standard of living and increases purchasing power to buy the products of farm and factory.").

So while I would agree that there hasn't been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage, it doesn't follow that there shouldn't be, or that FDR wasn't calling for that.

Now, as you point out the question becomes are there enough higher level jobs. I think the answer is yes, but I don't have the stats to back that up. I just know when I look at job listings it feels like there's a lot out there, various times of economic distress being the exception. The problem really is jobs have become so specialized it's harder to fit the role than it was in, say, the 70's. I don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole because I think it detracts from the main point, but I don't really see the problem right now is the "floor". People at the floor have always struggled to be fiscally independent. This is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint though. Any job that almost anyone can do will be valued less than a job that a limited number of people can do. The real problem is there is a segment of society that aren't growing career and skills-wise for a variety of reasons.

So it's definitely an assumption that there are enough higher level jobs. It's interesting you think there are, because my assumption would have been that there aren't. Stats-wise, it's quite hard to get a good picture, particularly given how the stats are framed can give a very different picture. For example, only 1.9% of all hourly paid workers earned at or below the federal minimum in 2019. But that's still 1.6 million hourly paid workers, it doesn't take into account just how low that federal minimum is, and it doesn't account for workers earning fractionally over the minimum.

Then there's studies like the one described here - https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...nd-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/ - which take a broader view of low wages and paint a very different picture, arguing that 'that there simply are not enough jobs paying decent wages for people without college degrees (who make up the majority of the labor force) to escape low-wage work.'

That is where I think we should be focusing. Instead of getting the 30 yo mother of two working at McDonalds more money, let's help her get to a position the only thing she's qualified for isn't McDonalds. I think as a society we should help her get there because it lifts up the entire community. However, even at $15 we aren't creating a"living wage". That is still pretty intense poverty and I firmly believe it's attacking the problem from the wrong side (making the job "good" instead of focusing on upward mobility for the people in those jobs).

I certainly agree that $15 is still a low wage not a living wage. But I would have taken that as all the more reason people working such jobs should be earning at least $15 an hour.

And what's the long term thinking here? If we could ensure that there are both enough skilled jobs for everyone and enough support for everyone potentially capable of doing them (leaving aside that there may well be substantial numbers of people not necessarily capable by virtue of health or circumstance and they shouldn't be denied a living wage either) to be enabled to do so, who's then doing all the McDonalds type jobs? If there aren't enough people for them, wages will have to go up to attract people back to them, or there'll be increased automation, or both... but if those are arguably consequences to be avoided when discussing the impact of increasing wages now, why would they not apply here?

To put it more simply, barring an insane amount of automation including in areas where it's highly challenging (e.g. social care), I don't see a future any time soon in which we don't continue to have very large numbers of what could be considered low-skilled work that we will still need filled.

So let me put it this way. Here's the key reasons why I think those jobs should earn a living wage:

1) They're real work, providing services to other people, that we generally want provided, and should be paid accordingly.
2) They're often part of a profitable businesses that can absolutely afford to pay those wages.
3) Economically, they put more money into the local community, stimulating the local economy.
4) People earning a minimum living wage doing menial work would still clearly have incentives to seek higher paid, better skilled work where available. They don't need to be forced to work for a subsistence wage to have that incentive.
5) Earning a living wage in itself helps enable people to invest in themselves, through further training, access to education, etc. People earning a minimum wage often can't; even if the education or training is free, the time and the travel aren't.

There are certainly things to debate there; for example, someone criticising the second point would no doubt point out that while there are profitable businesses that can afford it, there are also unprofitable businesses that can't. But I'd argue that improving wages increases the chances of more businesses being able to turn a profit, since it drives more purchasing power in the community, and if business do need support, arguably that should be provided directly, rather than allowing businesses that don't need support to be able to opt into it by simply paying minimum wages (or the flip side to that is arguing that they should be allowed to opt into it, but if they do, they should be paying higher taxes).

So I'm just not seeing the case against here. You mentioned that 'this is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint', but that raises the question of how that value is being determined, and whether it's being determined in a way we would consider fair, accurate, and desirable (and I'd argue that it is not). Providing education and training opportunities to address the relevant issues is certainly a worthwhile argument, but that can be an 'and', not an 'instead of'. Plus, as I mentioned above, higher minimum wages can better enable the uptake of those opportunities.

So what really is the basic case against paying people doing these jobs a living wage, or just a better minimum one?

 

[RobF]

Hmm... isn't that a kinda circular argument ? AFter all, if you increase the national minimum wage, then you increase inflation, and hence the cost of living ?

Not really, because it's not a linear relationship. Minimum wages are just one factor in determining the cost of living.

 

[Roofgardener]

There are other things, but do note I said 'it seems like' there are assumptions; they may not actually be assumptions, but on the basis of what you've said here, it's not clear that they aren't. I've got a minute, so I'll expand on it a bit.

The first part of your post was not solely about the pre-WW2 American economy. You were replying to @cuddlemonkey's quote of FDR, and stated, "in general he wasn’t referring to minorities who did the overwhelming majority of menial labor jobs." That's not merely a 'factual statement about the WW2 American economy', that's a statement that FDR wasn't referring to minorities doing menial labour jobs in his speech about changing the economy from what it was to what he thought it should be.

Given that, as @cuddlemonkey quoted, FDR explicitly stated, "I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry" and "I mean all workers," without something to support the notion that FDR actually meant the principles he was describing should apply to, "all workers, except those guys, you know the ones I mean", it would seem that there may be some assumptions in there.

An argument could be made that FDR's intent must have been in line with the times, in which (for example) ostensibly neutral support of unions and higher wages was used to effectively exclude African Americans from work in a time when racist employers would only hire them if they could pay them less, particularly in the South. But that would still be an assumption, and a counter-argument would point to things like the existence and influence of the so-called Black Cabinet and FDR's subsequent executive orders against discriminatory hiring to be taken into account.


Right, but FDR never succeeded in introducing the principles he described in that 1933 speech. The National Industry Recovery Act he made that statement in connection with didn't achieve that. It aimed to make the 'change from starvation wages and starvation employment to living wages and sustained employment' through 'an industrial covenant to which all employers shall subscribe', but that didn't actually happen. All employers did not subscribe, even where they did it wasn't well enforced particularly in some regions, and the NIRA itself was dead two years later, both politically, and due to being struck down by the Supreme Court.

The federal minimum wage wasn't introduced until 1938 with the heavily compromised Fair Labor Standards Act, and that wasn't FDR's living wage either. FDR described it as a start (specifically, he said it "starts us toward a better standard of living and increases purchasing power to buy the products of farm and factory.").

So while I would agree that there hasn't been a time where an entry-level low wage job had a livable wage, it doesn't follow that there shouldn't be, or that FDR wasn't calling for that.


So it's definitely an assumption that there are enough higher level jobs. It's interesting you think there are, because my assumption would have been that there aren't. Stats-wise, it's quite hard to get a good picture, particularly given how the stats are framed can give a very different picture. For example, only 1.9% of all hourly paid workers earned at or below the federal minimum in 2019. But that's still 1.6 million hourly paid workers, it doesn't take into account just how low that federal minimum is, and it doesn't account for workers earning fractionally over the minimum.

Then there's studies like the one described here - https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...nd-there-arent-enough-good-jobs-to-go-around/ - which take a broader view of low wages and paint a very different picture, arguing that 'that there simply are not enough jobs paying decent wages for people without college degrees (who make up the majority of the labor force) to escape low-wage work.'


I certainly agree that $15 is still a low wage not a living wage. But I would have taken that as all the more reason people working such jobs should be earning at least $15 an hour.

And what's the long term thinking here? If we could ensure that there are both enough skilled jobs for everyone and enough support for everyone potentially capable of doing them (leaving aside that there may well be substantial numbers of people not necessarily capable by virtue of health or circumstance and they shouldn't be denied a living wage either) to be enabled to do so, who's then doing all the McDonalds type jobs? If there aren't enough people for them, wages will have to go up to attract people back to them, or there'll be increased automation, or both... but if those are arguably consequences to be avoided when discussing the impact of increasing wages now, why would they not apply here?

To put it more simply, barring an insane amount of automation including in areas where it's highly challenging (e.g. social care), I don't see a future any time soon in which we don't continue to have very large numbers of what could be considered low-skilled work that we will still need filled.

So let me put it this way. Here's the key reasons why I think those jobs should earn a living wage:

1) They're real work, providing services to other people, that we generally want provided, and should be paid accordingly.
2) They're often part of a profitable businesses that can absolutely afford to pay those wages.
3) Economically, they put more money into the local community, stimulating the local economy.
4) People earning a minimum living wage doing menial work would still clearly have incentives to seek higher paid, better skilled work where available. They don't need to be forced to work for a subsistence wage to have that incentive.
5) Earning a living wage in itself helps enable people to invest in themselves, through further training, access to education, etc. People earning a minimum wage often can't; even if the education or training is free, the time and the travel aren't.

There are certainly things to debate there; for example, someone criticising the second point would no doubt point out that while there are profitable businesses that can afford it, there are also unprofitable businesses that can't. But I'd argue that improving wages increases the chances of more businesses being able to turn a profit, since it drives more purchasing power in the community, and if business do need support, arguably that should be provided directly, rather than allowing businesses that don't need support to be able to opt into it by simply paying minimum wages (or the flip side to that is arguing that they should be allowed to opt into it, but if they do, they should be paying higher taxes).

So I'm just not seeing the case against here. You mentioned that 'this is really driven by the value of the position from a skills standpoint', but that raises the question of how that value is being determined, and whether it's being determined in a way we would consider fair, accurate, and desirable (and I'd argue that it is not). Providing education and training opportunities to address the relevant issues is certainly a worthwhile argument, but that can be an 'and', not an 'instead of'. Plus, as I mentioned above, higher minimum wages can better enable the uptake of those opportunities.

So what really is the basic case against paying people doing these jobs a living wage, or just a better minimum one?

It's a fair point I suppose. We upped the minimum wage in the UK back in the late 1990's. Despite the harbingers of doom, it has NOT had a depressing effect on job growth or company profitability. Having said that, the minimum UK wage is about the equivalent of about $12, not $15.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

So what really is the basic case against paying people doing these jobs a living wage, or just a better minimum one?

First, thank you for the fantastic post. You're clearly far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am which is great because I learn and gain some points to read and research on. I appreciate you engaging in an actual discourse on the subject. Not everyone is doing that.

If you notice my position isn't really to push back on $15 as much as to push back on if it has the desired result. Our history is littered with well intentioned social and economic fixes that didn't really solve the problem. I don't know that focusing on bringing people from poverty to a slightly higher level of poverty solves the problem. I don't consider $15 a living wage in any urban area, and it's only barely that in most rural area.

So to me, the end result is we give people who are actually working these jobs to survive a little extra cash, which will be balanced out in the reduction of social safety net benefits they receive because of the increased income, but doesn't actually improve their overall economic condition. We will give young people living at home and working a side job extra disposal income, but I don't think that's really the intent of $15 an hour.

I'm open to a higher minimum wage. I don't know enough to know what the right amount is, but I'm not sure we can get it high enough to make entry-level unskilled labor jobs a true living wage, which would need to be significantly higher than $15 an hour. I prefer a comprehensive approach that doesn't make these jobs careers. I know people who are in their 30's and have been in a cycle of having these types of jobs at Walmart and various fast food places since high school. Giving them $15 won't change the fact that they are effectively still an unskilled laborer in their 30's. It's always going to be a challenge for them to find economic stability in that cycle.

As I said, I'm not as knowledgeable about all the statistics on the subject. I come more from the "sob story" on-the-ground perspective of being very poor and seeing what got people out of it and what kept the cycle going. Gaining skills is what got people out of the cycle and not gaining marketable skills is what kept them in it. So my focus tends to be on how we put fewer people into the workforce with no skills and how we help people in the workforce gain a marketable skill. One thing I see in the overwhelming number of people working menial labor jobs is they are hard-working, often very personable, and certainly capable of so much more. They just need a boost which I think we can provide. I've managed to do that for a number of family members and it has usually worked out well (in one case exceptionally well).

On the question of then who does the jobs, we will always be refilling the entry-level unskilled labor pool. No net we cast to help will catch everyone. There will be people working side jobs, students, folks with GED's, immigrants coming to the country with no job skills, people who didn't take advantage of high school programs, and people who lost decent jobs as industries change and evolve that have to realign. The idea is to create churn at that level and free those jobs up for them while helping the people in them advance to something else.

 

[Roofgardener]

Not really, because it's not a linear relationship. Minimum wages are just one factor in determining the cost of living.

Yes really. If you increase ONE of the inflationary inputs then - all other things being equal - inflation WILL rise.

 

[RobF]

Yes really. If you increase ONE of the inflationary inputs then - all other things being equal - inflation WILL rise.

No, not really. In order for it to be truly circular, an increase in minimum wage would have to drive an equivalent increase in cost of living driving in turn the same degree of increase in minimum wage, which it wouldn't in and of itself, because there are other factors determining cost of living. At most, if applied in a dumb formulaic fashion, it would drive a series of diminishing increases.

 

[Roofgardener]

No, not really. In order for it to be truly circular, an increase in minimum wage would have to drive an equivalent increase in cost of living driving in turn the same degree of increase in minimum wage, which it wouldn't in and of itself, because there are other factors determining cost of living. At most, if applied in a dumb formulaic fashion, it would drive a series of diminishing increases.

Yes. Increases.

Whether these would be regenerative, or just trending to a value, depends on the weighting of the increase in minimum wage as an input to inflation. They would, nevertheless, create an increase.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

There's quite a big difference between our Constitution and the opinion of a former President.

We'll just agree to disagree there because I think the notion that the Constitution is some sacrosanct document given to us by demigods of the past is questionable. It's a flawed document written by flawed men who couldn't possibly conceive of the exigencies of the modern era.