What's new

The Minimum Wage and Hourly Rates Thread

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: 5 16.7%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn $26 to $36 per hour (up to about 75k per year)

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn $37 to $48 (up to about 100k per year)

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I earn over $49 per hour (anything over 100k per year)

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • YES I approve of the min wage & I do not want to say what I earn.

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • 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 6.7%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn $26 to $36 per hour (up to about 75k per year)

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn $37 to $48 (up to about 100k per year)

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I earn over $49 per hour (anything over 100k per year)

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • NO I do not approve of the min wage & I do not want to say what I earn.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Employers are quite happy to pay well below the productivity benefit derived from the employee. There would be no internet billionaires if the CEOs were not deriving wealth from the productivity created by others.


Is this effect being seen in, for example, Seattle, which already has a $15 wage?

Well, the average salary at Facebook is $123K a year........yet somehow Mark Zuckerburg became a millionaire.

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Facebook_Inc/Salary

Employees are always going to get paid less than their production. A business can't function otherwise. I personally don't see it as deriving wealth from another person's productivity. I see it as a reward for the risk undertaken, capital invested, or initiative and foresight to start a business. I suppose in reality it's a combination of the two.

Lots of mixed studies on the Seattle impact. I'm not sure Seattle is the best example study, considering its already high cost of living, etc. Results might be different in Kentucky, Alabama, Indiana, etc.
 
Note I just looked up, according to the studies I saw approximately 40% of working Americans earn under $15/hr, this would be a significant pay-raise for something like 1/3rd of the country.

Do people think that increasing the minimum wage is simply going to take money out of business owners hands, and give it to employees?

Every economic policy by government creates a reaction by the market. Business owners have invested time and capital, potentially taken out loans or engaged in other risk, are not simply going to move forward business as usual. They are going to take measures to minimize their losses (outsource, automate, raise prices, hire under the table, restructure the business, etc.).

Many companies will consolidate low-skilled jobs into a fewer number of jobs that pay above $15 an hour.
 
Effort and productivity are separate things. Someone can be giving maximum effort, but still deficient in productivity, or vice versa. When I suggest productivity, it refers to how much $$$ the employer can make off of you, or potentially your position in the company (likely a pool of employees).

Anyone who feels their time and productivity is more valuable than what their employer is willing to pay is free to seek other opportunities. If they are right, they are very likely to find someone that will pay them more. The example you give proves my point, you were previously in a job that required more production for less pay, and you left that job for one that now pays you more.
But you were seeming to say that employers always pay people what they are worth.
I disagree with that

Also, lucky for me I lived in a place with a lot of opportunities and a strong economy. If I lived in butt**** wyoming I would probably still be making nothing.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
To the part about paying $15 bucks to sweep the theater, I would argue yes, why not? Yes normally this is staffed by like high-school kids, but what about someone taking the job to make ends meet when there might not be anything else around? I think you cannot differentiate that way, or if you do then they need a sliding scale for school-aged workers, as I believe Utah has because 2 of my kids worked at Lagoon under this program at 14, and only promote that job to them, but if they can't find any, then they pay the minimum. Plus this is such a small part of the worker market to worry about. Just pay them the minimum like everyone else. A job is a job and it wouldn't be needed if it weren't making someone money somewhere up the chain.
We have EITC and a laundry list of programs that address this. Is there really a good argument that raising minimum wage to a living wage is better than targeting welfare where needed?

EITC, child tax credit, daycare tax credit, SNAP, housing assistance, utility assistance, all targeting programs.

Nobody has even gotten into a breakdown of who earns minimum wage and % in poverty earning it.
 
Do people think that increasing the minimum wage is simply going to take money out of business owners hands, and give it to employees?

Every economic policy by government creates a reaction by the market. Business owners have invested time and capital, potentially taken out loans or engaged in other risk, are not simply going to move forward business as usual. They are going to take measures to minimize their losses (outsource, automate, raise prices, hire under the table, restructure the business, etc.).

Many companies will consolidate low-skilled jobs into a fewer number of jobs that pay above $15 an hour.

Do I think every single dollar from a minimum wage hike will go to workers - absolutely not. Do I think a meaningful amount of it will - yes.
 
We have EITC and a laundry list of programs that address this. Is there really a good argument that raising minimum wage to a living wage is better than targeting welfare where needed?

EITC, child tax credit, daycare tax credit, SNAP, housing assistance, utility assistance, all targeting programs.

Nobody has even gotten into a breakdown of who earns minimum wage and % in poverty earning it.

There was a Senate report kinda related to this a couple of years back (not whether wages or targeted programs were better, but on who's earning what wages and what % are in poverty and qualifying for and using federal programs).

 
There was a Senate report kinda related to this a couple of years back (not whether wages or targeted programs were better, but on who's earning what wages and what % are in poverty and qualifying for and using federal programs).

I've read similar studies over the years. One claimed only 3.2% work for minimum wage, and only 14% of families on govt assistance have a minimum wage worker. Now, the obvious problem with that one was not adding a higher tier, say up to $10/hr or so, so we get a broader picture.

These studies mostly paint the picture that those working for minimum wage largely aren't the needy, which is why I prefer beefing up assistance to the needy when necessary over a blanket increase of minimum wage to what many view is an outlandish number. Biden's new child tax credit, which was just doubled by Trump, is a good way to help the needy IMO (and also currently quite a bit overgenerous to those with children but not needy).
 
Well California and a few other states are at or above the $15 minimum wage now. No big slam to businesses so far. My companies have been more profitable than ever, even during the pandemic. Yeah, my individual buildings had to have their finances modified, and frankly I think this partly contributed to inflation raising prices as business will just pass it along to the consumer. Look at places like Wendy's that are now one of the most expensive fast food places where they used to be known for being more reasonable. and they were one of the first to get to the $15 minimum among fast food companies in Cali. Is there a connection? I kind of think so. The days of a cheap meal for the kids at a place like McDonald's are fading fast, if not gone already.



Also, this could be a thread to discuss UBI as was brought up in another thread, since that has been part of this conversation already.

Although maybe we need a new one with a new poll. thoughts?
 
I do wonder if there might be a tipping point where we don't need enough people in the labor force to the point where there aren't enough people making money and therefore not enough people to buy all the things robots, automation and AI can produce at a massive scale. As you mentioned, the 40hr workweek is so ingrained in our culture and anyone "only" willing to do 40hrs a week is a lazy, non-team player, not invested in the company, etc... The impact of people trying to hold onto a full-time 40hr/week job might mean a big spike in unemployment at some point in the future.
 
I do wonder if there might be a tipping point where we don't need enough people in the labor force to the point where there aren't enough people making money and therefore not enough people to buy all the things robots, automation and AI can produce at a massive scale. As you mentioned, the 40hr workweek is so ingrained in our culture and anyone "only" willing to do 40hrs a week is a lazy, non-team player, not invested in the company, etc... The impact of people trying to hold onto a full-time 40hr/week job might mean a big spike in unemployment at some point in the future.
One problem is that the stock market demands GROWTH. It's not enough to be selling a ton of widgets, you must sell 10% more of them than last year, or else you're a failure. EXPANSION is the shareholder's god, and, as such, it needs to consume everything, including most especially the workers, because you can always hire someone new, who only knows the NEW goals, not the old ones.
 
Boston Dynamics: Making LogGrad98 obsolete


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgGH6Vk8nY8

Not me, just a lot of my employees.

In one of my buildings we implemented robots for part of the picking operation and ended up replacing about 35 people. We didn't lay anyone off or anything, moved them to other areas, and let natural attrition take care of it, but yeah now we employ 35 fewer people in that part of the operation. Even larger impact at peak, saves us maybe 70 people at peak. And we are way money ahead for the cost of the robots compared to the cost of the employees. Labor is a warehouse's single biggest cost, even more than rent usually, so saving there is paramount.
 
Boston Dynamics: Making LogGrad98 obsolete


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgGH6Vk8nY8


I toured an Anheuser-Busch factory a long time ago and it was completely automated. It was really crazy to walk around a huge factory and not see any humans. We passed one or two maintenance techs, and then there were about 5 people in a control room. I'm not sure about unloading, but all of the other warehousing and loading were all done by robots.

That was the moment I was grateful for my education and my ability to get jobs that robots can't do (at least for now).
 
I
I see no reason why these kinds of things cannot be automated in the future. They will get better. They will still need people to oversee it and make sure it doesn't break down and such but this is a pretty basic job, and assembly like this is what robots excel at.
 
I would absolutely love a restaurant that was fully automated. It sounds like this is just the customer facing jobs at this McDonalds, but I would love to have the cooking automated and have perfect execution every time.
I wonder if you could train an AI to be a chef? Probably not until you could figure out a way to have a taste input.
 
I toured an Anheuser-Busch factory a long time ago and it was completely automated. It was really crazy to walk around a huge factory and not see any humans. We passed one or two maintenance techs, and then there were about 5 people in a control room. I'm not sure about unloading, but all of the other warehousing and loading were all done by robots.

That was the moment I was grateful for my education and my ability to get jobs that robots can't do (at least for now).
Check out "Humans" I think on Prime. Won't be too long and the sentient robots will replace us all.
 
I wonder if you could train an AI to be a chef? Probably not until you could figure out a way to have a taste input.
There are definitely technology available to simulate taste. We are super far away from being able to replicate what a chef does though.

I definitely think you could develop machines/robots to replicate what a fast food/mass produced food cook does though. I would trust a machine/robot to cook things consistently vs a minimum wage employee. I think we are relatively close in to seeing something like that. When that happens, it will be interesting, because in essence the engineer becomes the chef.
 
Top