What is your hourly wage, and do you approve of the proposed $15 federal minimum wage?

  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn up to $25 per hour (equates to 52k per year or less)

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn $26 to $36 per hour (up to about 75k per year)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn $37 to $48 (up to about 100k per year)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn over $49 per hour (anything over 100k per year)

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I do not want to say what I earn.

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn up to $25 per hour (equates to 52k per year or less)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn $26 to $36 per hour (up to about 75k per year)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn $37 to $48 (up to about 100k per year)

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn over $49 per hour (anything over 100k per year)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I do not want to say what I earn.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    24

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
Many of my clients are already going to partially automated. So far no one has been let go, but there aren't new hires either. At $15 in some of these states, a lot of people will lose jobs as automation becomes more economical. If as an employer, I have certain jobs I could create, but the cost to operate is too high to make a profit, I don't make those jobs, so you have to be careful with the tradeoffs. Other countries that have raised minimum wage are already seeing an acceleration to automation. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that minimum wage was created to keep women and minorities out of the job force (Chinese railroad workers were a big "problem" for white men wanting jobs after the great depression. Now it can keep less qualified people out of the workforce, and accelerate the automation movement. If an employer is willing to hire someone and give them experience, but can really only afford $10 per hour to make the position net positive or even neutral for the employer, he won't be creating jobs at $15/hour. Additionally, minimum wage workers can often only afford to shop at places that have minimum wage employees (cheap fast food, clothing stores, etc.). There is a direct correlation to retail pricing increases with businesses that tend to have minimum/lower wage workforces (and a similar but attenuated impact for other businesses).



A minimum wage is simply a band-aid for our failure as a society to put the large majority of our citizens on a path to achieving skills for good paying jobs that has had a disparate impact on minorities. We need to put better programs to give all people that need it a better opportunity to get into colleges and many of the trades, in which the availability of skills workers is declining. Keep in mind that over 50% of American households pay ZERO federal tax (this is a long-term trend). Clearly we have a problem.

Raising minimum wage to a degree is a necessity to deal with inflation, but it masks the true issues.

Another idea is since we have crumbling roads, etc. Don't just give money. Have programs that will help people improve our aging infrastructure. Give jobs where people can learn skills and continue to thrive.

Tldr: Minimum wage is a band aid. Let's stop temporary stop-gaps, and stop throwing aimless money at the problem. Let's give everyone an opportunity to get skills to earn a living wage. Let's protect those that truly cannot, and stop sympathizing for those that simply choose not to do anything to better themselves.
I think you are right that there is a gap in between entry level and highly skilled jobs, call it moderately skilled, but even getting more skilled workers leave the large part of the problem still on the table.

I have heard this a lot from various people, that if people want to make more money they need to go school and get a degree, or whatnot. The problem with some of this, the part about getting people on track for higher paying jobs, is that one reason those jobs are higher paying is there are fewer of them. If we somehow got every single person a degree in computer science, we would still need people slinging boxes in warehouses and running basic manufacturing equipment. It isn't like the "entry-level" jobs are just there because people don't have any other skills. Frankly it is the lifeblood of our economy. Amazon employs over 100k people, what percentage do you imagine are programmers and what percentage are basic warehouse workers? Like a 10 to 1 at least for the warehouse workers. Have all of amazon's programmers miss a week of work, then have all of their warehouse workers miss a week, and which would be more disruptive (barring act of god like stuff of course)?

We don't take into account in these conversations that we need the people on the front lines doing front line work. It is a necessity for our economy. It is really the engine that drives it. And as such shouldn't we value that enough that they can make enough to live on? Not necessarily with the newest iPhone all the time, but basic needs met and not feeling like they always have their backs against the wall at the very least.

Not sure what the best way is to do that, but I can tell you that even at $15 per hour that is a tall order. I know people say there can be 2 bread-winners, but what about single-parent households? So mom just goes out and gets 2 jobs, maybe 3, to make up for it since, you know, we expect there to be someone helping, so she needs to help herself? That is the pattern we have been in for a long time now. We need to address this to allow people at all levels to enjoy the fruits of our advanced economy and luxuries of our improved standard of living. Sure it is improved across the board, but frankly even the richest of the rich would be nowhere if their front-line workers decided to call it quits. The value of their work needs to be reflected in the proportion of the value of the companies they are part of that filters down to them. Frankly a CEO that makes millions in salary and bonuses and stock, while the front-line folks don't get their 2.5% raise that doesn't match inflation, is a travesty of the highest order. We saw it in a lot of companies last year that used COVID as an immediate excuse to cut hourly worker raises and bonuses while plenty still paid out bonuses to the highest-level folks. It is a joke.

And the argument that we don't need to pay a high school kid a "living wage" is frankly pathetic. They are such a small proportion of the workers in the groups being discussed here it is almost not worth mentioning.

I do think we need some way to help small business with these things. I don't know maybe a stipend per worker and a scale that helps them pay the minimum wage, so maybe if you are under 50 workers and under $1mill in revenue then you can pay your workers $10 per hour, and the goverment subsidizes to get them up to the $15. And the scale slides from there, or something.

But we need to do something. Not only is this an issue for day-to-day living, but we then face the issue that we are doing nothing as a society to help provide for these people in retirement. It is well-known that SS is in free-fall. With the pyramid scheme nature of it self-cannibalizing as the pyramid turns upside-down as the boomers all move into retirement, we will be hard-pressed to care for a large proportion of the population as they enter retirement age after that point. The push away from pensions and toward 401ks has been great for business and bad for the ordinary worker. Worse than bad as many simply cannot afford to contribute, so they will have nothing come retirement.

But we have to start somewhere. At least raising the minimum wage to $15 is a bandaid on the gaping wound, whereas what many people would have us do is let it bleed while we argue about how to put a bandaid on it.
 


TheGoldStandard

Well-Known Member
I think you are right that there is a gap in between entry level and highly skilled jobs, call it moderately skilled, but even getting more skilled workers leave the large part of the problem still on the table.

I have heard this a lot from various people, that if people want to make more money they need to go school and get a degree, or whatnot. The problem with some of this, the part about getting people on track for higher paying jobs, is that one reason those jobs are higher paying is there are fewer of them. If we somehow got every single person a degree in computer science, we would still need people slinging boxes in warehouses and running basic manufacturing equipment. It isn't like the "entry-level" jobs are just there because people don't have any other skills. Frankly it is the lifeblood of our economy. Amazon employs over 100k people, what percentage do you imagine are programmers and what percentage are basic warehouse workers? Like a 10 to 1 at least for the warehouse workers. Have all of amazon's programmers miss a week of work, then have all of their warehouse workers miss a week, and which would be more disruptive (barring act of god like stuff of course)?

We don't take into account in these conversations that we need the people on the front lines doing front line work. It is a necessity for our economy. It is really the engine that drives it. And as such shouldn't we value that enough that they can make enough to live on? Not necessarily with the newest iPhone all the time, but basic needs met and not feeling like they always have their backs against the wall at the very least.

Not sure what the best way is to do that, but I can tell you that even at $15 per hour that is a tall order. I know people say there can be 2 bread-winners, but what about single-parent households? So mom just goes out and gets 2 jobs, maybe 3, to make up for it since, you know, we expect there to be someone helping, so she needs to help herself? That is the pattern we have been in for a long time now. We need to address this to allow people at all levels to enjoy the fruits of our advanced economy and luxuries of our improved standard of living. Sure it is improved across the board, but frankly even the richest of the rich would be nowhere if their front-line workers decided to call it quits. The value of their work needs to be reflected in the proportion of the value of the companies they are part of that filters down to them. Frankly a CEO that makes millions in salary and bonuses and stock, while the front-line folks don't get their 2.5% raise that doesn't match inflation, is a travesty of the highest order. We saw it in a lot of companies last year that used COVID as an immediate excuse to cut hourly worker raises and bonuses while plenty still paid out bonuses to the highest-level folks. It is a joke.

And the argument that we don't need to pay a high school kid a "living wage" is frankly pathetic. They are such a small proportion of the workers in the groups being discussed here it is almost not worth mentioning.

I do think we need some way to help small business with these things. I don't know maybe a stipend per worker and a scale that helps them pay the minimum wage, so maybe if you are under 50 workers and under $1mill in revenue then you can pay your workers $10 per hour, and the goverment subsidizes to get them up to the $15. And the scale slides from there, or something.

But we need to do something. Not only is this an issue for day-to-day living, but we then face the issue that we are doing nothing as a society to help provide for these people in retirement. It is well-known that SS is in free-fall. With the pyramid scheme nature of it self-cannibalizing as the pyramid turns upside-down as the boomers all move into retirement, we will be hard-pressed to care for a large proportion of the population as they enter retirement age after that point. The push away from pensions and toward 401ks has been great for business and bad for the ordinary worker. Worse than bad as many simply cannot afford to contribute, so they will have nothing come retirement.

But we have to start somewhere. At least raising the minimum wage to $15 is a bandaid on the gaping wound, whereas what many people would have us do is let it bleed while we argue about how to put a bandaid on it.
To your point, do you realize that Amazon's starting wage is already $15 an hour? Talk to any UPS loader, they make good money, and they promote you to driver if you stay. And that is good money. There are plenty of "unskilled" labor jobs that pay decent. Target, Best Buy, and many others also start at $15. But should the person sweeping up popcorn at the movie theatre make $15/hr?

If we pay a better wage, tie minimum wage to inflation, and tie welfare to that same table, then so be it.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
To your point, do you realize that Amazon's starting wage is already $15 an hour? Talk to any UPS loader, they make good money, and they promote you to driver if you stay. And that is good money. There are plenty of "unskilled" labor jobs that pay decent. Target, Best Buy, and many others also start at $15. But should the person sweeping up popcorn at the movie theatre make $15/hr?

If we pay a better wage, tie minimum wage to inflation, and tie welfare to that same table, then so be it.
Many of these jobs have gone up in wage, but that has largely been driven by 2 factors: 1, some places like California have already been moving their minimum wage to the $15 mark, and they represent a large proportion of amazon's workforce, combined with the spectre of an increase in the federal minimum wage of course, and 2, competition for workers in these somewhat tighter markets have driven up the cost of workers, so to speak. So we have seen an increase in starting wage in some of these companies. I know here in California most companies have been ramping up to the minimum wage, following the state-prescribed progression each year for the past few years, and are still lagging behind the amazons in the area. For California $15 is a bare minimum, and really would keep a single mother, let's say, at just above the poverty line. It really needs to be higher here and in other places with higher cost of living.

This is where we get into the indexing conversations. It needs to be indexed to the cost of living or something for any specific region. $15 goes way way further in alabama than it does in California.

As I stated, I'm in favor of the increase mainly because we need to start somewhere and there are plenty in Congress who would rather filibuster this out if existence in order to support ever-increasing profits for their lobbying partners.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
No clue. I did a search for average rent in Utah and roughly averaged the different Wasatch front counties and rounded down a bit.

General info for a general point. Just like $15 an hour gets you roughly around $800 a month for rent/mortgage to fit the 28% suggestion. How common and what quality are $800 a month rentals?
I can't speak to Utah, of course, but in the St. Louis metro east, I have a 2500sq.ft.+ rental for $1200 near downtown Belleville. $800 can get you a smaller house.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
I can't speak to Utah, of course, but in the St. Louis metro east, I have a 2500sq.ft.+ rental for $1200 near downtown Belleville. $800 can get you a smaller house.
Here in California you can't touch anything as big as 2000 sqft for less than maybe $2400.
 

Gameface

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
I can't speak to Utah, of course, but in the St. Louis metro east, I have a 2500sq.ft.+ rental for $1200 near downtown Belleville. $800 can get you a smaller house.
Don't know if you missed my reply, but in the Salt Lake Valley, my quick check using a price range of $600-$800 turned up rooms for rent, one studio apt in what looked like it was in a sketchy area and the building looked to be (not exaggerating) around 100 years old, and a duplex 1 bedroom that had plywood for siding.
 

TheGoldStandard

Well-Known Member
Many of these jobs have gone up in wage, but that has largely been driven by 2 factors: 1, some places like California have already been moving their minimum wage to the $15 mark, and they represent a large proportion of amazon's workforce, combined with the spectre of an increase in the federal minimum wage of course, and 2, competition for workers in these somewhat tighter markets have driven up the cost of workers, so to speak. So we have seen an increase in starting wage in some of these companies. I know here in California most companies have been ramping up to the minimum wage, following the state-prescribed progression each year for the past few years, and are still lagging behind the amazons in the area. For California $15 is a bare minimum, and really would keep a single mother, let's say, at just above the poverty line. It really needs to be higher here and in other places with higher cost of living.

This is where we get into the indexing conversations. It needs to be indexed to the cost of living or something for any specific region. $15 goes way way further in alabama than it does in California.

As I stated, I'm in favor of the increase mainly because we need to start somewhere and there are plenty in Congress who would rather filibuster this out if existence in order to support ever-increasing profits for their lobbying partners.
I disagree (with outliers) that high wage areas (CA, DC, etc.) have a trickling effect to other states/markets. Most businesses pay what they have to for their workforce. I do agree that competition for these employees with low unemployment is a good thing. Historically there isn't a trend in rising unemployment tied to a minimum wage increase, but that is because we have never doubled the minimum wage in one go which is one of the proposals I saw.

States can already set minimum wage. Why have the feds **** up the index? Let states moderate these decisions, and keep control for their residents.

I don't think we need a federal increase as stated above. Again, it is a band aid.
 

Beer

Well-Known Member
I can't speak to Utah, of course, but in the St. Louis metro east, I have a 2500sq.ft.+ rental for $1200 near downtown Belleville. $800 can get you a smaller house.

2500 square feet from SLC to Provo would be $2,500 for a mediocre house in a mediocre area. $3,500 if you want to be somewhere nicer.
 
Last edited:

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Don't know if you missed my reply, but in the Salt Lake Valley, my quick check using a price range of $600-$800 turned up rooms for rent, one studio apt in what looked like it was in a sketchy area and the building looked to be (not exaggerating) around 100 years old, and a duplex 1 bedroom that had plywood for siding.
You say that like 100 years old is bad. My rental is 140.
 

Gameface

IT'S TIME TO GET YOUR GAMEFACE ON!
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
You say that like 100 years old is bad. My rental is 140.
Lol, it may have been absolutely charming. But it was an apartment building, not a single unit. I didn't look at anything more than the main pic associated with the listing.
 

Saint Cy of JFC

Well-Known Member
Many of my clients are already going to partially automated. So far no one has been let go, but there aren't new hires either. At $15 in some of these states, a lot of people will lose jobs as automation becomes more economical. If as an employer, I have certain jobs I could create, but the cost to operate is too high to make a profit, I don't make those jobs, so you have to be careful with the tradeoffs. Other countries that have raised minimum wage are already seeing an acceleration to automation. It is a fact.

It is also a fact that minimum wage was created to keep women and minorities out of the job force (Chinese railroad workers were a big "problem" for white men wanting jobs after the great depression. Now it can keep less qualified people out of the workforce, and accelerate the automation movement. If an employer is willing to hire someone and give them experience, but can really only afford $10 per hour to make the position net positive or even neutral for the employer, he won't be creating jobs at $15/hour. Additionally, minimum wage workers can often only afford to shop at places that have minimum wage employees (cheap fast food, clothing stores, etc.). There is a direct correlation to retail pricing increases with businesses that tend to have minimum/lower wage workforces (and a similar but attenuated impact for other businesses).



A minimum wage is simply a band-aid for our failure as a society to put the large majority of our citizens on a path to achieving skills for good paying jobs that has had a disparate impact on minorities. We need to put better programs to give all people that need it a better opportunity to get into colleges and many of the trades, in which the availability of skills workers is declining. Keep in mind that over 50% of American households pay ZERO federal tax (this is a long-term trend). Clearly we have a problem.

Raising minimum wage to a degree is a necessity to deal with inflation, but it masks the true issues.

Another idea is since we have crumbling roads, etc. Don't just give money. Have programs that will help people improve our aging infrastructure. Give jobs where people can learn skills and continue to thrive.

Tldr: Minimum wage is a band aid. Let's stop temporary stop-gaps, and stop throwing aimless money at the problem. Let's give everyone an opportunity to get skills to earn a living wage. Let's protect those that truly cannot, and stop sympathizing for those that simply choose not to do anything to better themselves.
Uhh, as long as jobs exist that people have to do, they deserve a living wage. The lowest of low jobs should still pay at living wage. It's not a "band-aid" issue. Our society can't function some of these jobs, no matter how unskilled. Even if you gave everyone great skills training and education, you'd still have these positions that have to be filled by someone.
 

Saint Cy of JFC

Well-Known Member
Don't know if you missed my reply, but in the Salt Lake Valley, my quick check using a price range of $600-$800 turned up rooms for rent, one studio apt in what looked like it was in a sketchy area and the building looked to be (not exaggerating) around 100 years old, and a duplex 1 bedroom that had plywood for siding.
I would use a studio apartment as the standard for figuring out a living wage. Like what's the lower end of the range for studio apartments and use that as the rent figure for a living wage.
 

Top