Why stop at living wage? Everyone deserves to be comfortable, no? They should pass a 'comfortable wage' bill. Heck, it should be illegal to work for anything less than $50 an hour. What we need is politicians with the leadership necessary to outlaw poverty.
If not, my response to that there should never be a 'comfortable wage'. Everyone needs that crappy job they hate - dishwasher, ditch digger - that pays nothing in order to motivate them to get out of said situation.
We all (most of us) worked that crappy job when we were younger, and hated it, and one of many reasons I stay motivated to provide value now is, well, because I don't want to be a dishwasher.
No matter where you are in life, there's always something a lot worse and something a lot better. I can imagine jobs much worse than washing dishes and much better than making 6 figures sitting in an office chair.
That's disgusting. We should make sure people have the chance to suffer because suffering makes us better people? That's moralistic crap. If we have the resources to diminish suffering without causing harm, it is wrong not to do it. If all work could be automated, it would be wrong to have people who don't want to work working.
I think there is a reason for not having a mandatory comfortable wage; some people would simply not find jobs if we raised the minimum wage to a point were it becomes unprofitable to pay it. But that's the only reason for paying less. Not some BS sanctity of hard work thing.
I didn't put that solution forward, another poster did. I don't really agree with him, because I think under the current circumstances, making all crappy jobs illegal is bad, as you say. I do believe some of the crappiest jobs should be illegal (that's why I agree with minimum wages as long as the amount is well thought), because that keeps the worst abusers in check. However, I think justifying it with "the market" and "Everyone needs that crappy job they hate in order to motivate them" is wrong. The only reason for that jobs to exist is that we can't provide better ones right now.
So what are the "crappiest" jobs then? What metric would you use to measure them? Should all jobs (or most) seen on the show Dirty Jobs be outlawed? How many of those being outlawed would it take before society collapses due to no garbage being collected, maintenance being done on bridges, fishing not happening, etc. And are those jobs actually crappier than working at Wal-Mart or K-Mart? Which should be outlawed, under your scenario?
No. No particular job should be outlawed, probably (that is, nothing that is legal to do for free should be illegal to do for money). But the point of minimum wage, as I see it, is to keep potential employers from abusing people who are not in a position to demand better wages, because if they won't work for almost no money, they won't get to work at all. The idea is that if you need someone to do work for you, you are generating profit from that, or you wouldn't hire them. By having a floor on how much you must pay, you are trying to keep people in bad situations from being abused by those who would exploit them.
According to this living wage calculator http://livingwage.mit.edu/, the living wage for a family of 4 where I live (suburbs of DC) is about $50K. That sounds like a lot, but actually living here there is no way we could survive on that. They only calculate $464 a month for medical for a family of 4. I'm lucky in that my wife has ridiculous health insurance through her job. When we didn't have that our share of the premium was more than that, let alone copays, OTC drugs, etc. Also, the living wage calculation does not account for clothes, school, or about 50 other things that would come up in a family with kids.
Why are people so eager to make it harder for poor people to get jobs by forcing price controls onto employers?
footoverhand: I want as many people to be able to work as possible. If you think it is too hard for people to live on the salaries that are available at their skill level, then by all means we can talk about improving the social safety net... but forcing companies to lay off people to maintain their salary budgets through salary controls is NOT a good way to help poor people.
Depends. Should minimum wage be what it takes a single parent with two kids to live on or should it be what a college student looking for beer money needs to live on?
I think we should have a maximum wage for software engineers... say, $50,000 a year... and have startups in the Valley pay the difference into a fund to augment the wages of Walmart employees.
EDIT: Oh, no one here likes this idea? Imagine that!
I like to think of governments as old software programs. When they are first built, they are built with enthusiasm and passion to create the next new shiny thing. After a couple hundred years, they evolve into a giant pile of organic hacks for features to satisfy their users, and changes to fix existing bugs just result in regression. This is one of those patches, and it will regress.
Why is this targeted at large retailers? If the DC minimum wage is insufficient for "living", shouldn't it be raised, instead of a somewhat arbitrary law forcing only retailers to raise their wages?
oh, it's horrible. When I lived in the DC area, I used to volunteer for this organization: http://www.foodforalldc.org/wp/ - and I delivered food to the worst parts of the city, where people are very much unemployed and living off of far less of an income than the minimum wage. This law does nothing to help them, whatsoever.
I have no particular love for walmart besides their knack for being good at delivering things efficiently (their aggressive use of eminent domain makes me angry). But laws should be fair and applied equitably. What this law is - is nothing but political posturing, demagoguery masked in the language of helping the less well off. I wonder, do the DC council members actually lift a hand to help out the people they say they care about, when a camera's not rolling?
I feel like I read this somewhere before... Pretty sure it was Atlas Shrugged, not the best literary work, but paints a pretty clear picture of a world where people get money they don't earn.
I've posted something twice citing that book and it always gets down voted, on the other hand when I state some of the ideology of the book it gets up voted (strange). Just thought i'd share.
Also, I agree it's where the government is heading. People need to learn that life is what they make it, not what is handed to them.
It's overall a lousy book that happened to get some obvious things right.
The fact that people in her time disagreed with these obvious things does not mean Ayn Rand was particularly prescient, it just means lots of people believe obviously wrong things.
Personally I agree, although I have had many friends who enjoyed the books romantic style, they also like Jane Eyre, Wuthering heights, Frankenstein, etc. Its just a style that I (and most) do not find enjoyable I guess.
I do however enjoy her non-fiction. Her arguments are much more concise (12 page explain her entirely philosophy as opposed to 1025 or w.e Atlas Shrugged was).
This article almost willfully leaves out a pretty crucial detail: the living wage only applies to businesses that have non-union employees. So let's be clear what this is: it's an effort to give union-run stores a labor advantage and protect them from non-union competition. Safeway and Giant foods don't have to worry about competing with WalMart or Target's rock-bottom prices[1]
I had no idea union stores were exempt. And unless Safeway and Giant have upped their wages recently they pay quite a bit less than 12.50 an hour for new employees.
Safeway and Giant (and Kroger and Supervalu etc) are forced by the UFCW to pay high wages ($18/hour in Seattle), and fully fund medical insurance for every employee working more than 20 hours per month.
As a system admin, it's taken me 6 years after college to get back to the wage I made as a grocery store checker.
The west coast stores and east coast stores must have different unions. When I worked at non-union Kmart I made more per hour than I could have made at union Safeway (east coast).
As far as I know, they're all the same union (UFCW), but they have regional contracts. I'm pretty sure Portland (Oregon)'s grocery workers have a lower top pay.
The article may not have mentioned it, but the fact that there is a recognition of unions in there is not necessarily a bad thing... Those "rock-bottom prices" are just system-gaming - the real extra cost of the goods is hidden and distributed across the communities in which they operate (in the form of reduced living conditions, health care, quality of life, etc.) - all things that unions exist to protect... What is so fundamentally wrong about a community saying "no - it's not OK to try and distribute tat burden to the backs of our citizens"?
This is smart and it's just DC protecting itself. When the full-time (actually 39 hour/week, so they don't get health insurance) Wal-Mart employee making $8.25/hour still needs food stamps to live, who do you think gets stuck with the bill for that? The DC government does.
Assuming Wal-Mart actually sticks to its ultimatum.
If one of the most successful businesses in history can't find a way to turn a profit in one of the most populous, affluent areas in the country while paying employees enough to live in the same area, then maybe they shouldn't be in business after all. Like the article says, Wal-Mart needs DC. DC doesn't need Wal-Mart.
CostCo has no problems here and they pay around $15/hour.
CostCo and Wal-Mart have pretty different business models despite being competitors. It should be noted that CostCo's retail business, without the membership fees, is actually not profitable. It's the membership fees that put them in the black.
DC has enough people to create a market for retailers. It is not a question of if someone sells things, but whom. The idea that if these Wal-Marts don't move in, these people won't have jobs is a fallacy: They'll just have jobs working for a more responsible employer. As a resident of D.C., I'm happy with what the council has done here.
What will most likely happen is that SOME of those people will be able to get a job at a "responsible employer" but large numbers will become more destitute because of this decision.
Guess what: CostCo et al employ FEWER people per dollar people spend in the store, which is why they can afford the higher salaries. They do not somehow magically generate money out of thin air and hand it to their employees out of the goodness of their heart.
Look at it from the DC government's perspective. Wal-Mart is trying to get something valuable: access to a highly lucrative market. The DC government wants to get something in return: fewer people who require public assistance.
The cost of living in DC is extremely high. If most of the jobs created by Wal-Mart leave the employees still requiring food stamps, subsidized housing, and free clinics. What's the point to DC in allowing them here? They may as well have kept on paying those people the food stamps anyway, without the added harm of destroying the small business Wal-Mart is no doubt going to steamroll over, and contributing to the homogenization of the US into one long blur of identical national chain stores.
DC is not interested in subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. They're just leeching off the taxpayers.
> If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise.
This is the core flaw in your argument. First of all, it is obviously wrong on the surface (i.e. Wal-Mart reports profits every quarter) and even the argument you actually MEANT to make is wrong (No, it is not intrinsically better for society to have CostCo come in and hiring fewer employees and have more people needing full assistance, vs. WalMart come in and hiring more people needing partial assistance.)
If a portion of your costs are paid not by revenue, but by taxpayer subsidy, and if the loss of that subsidy makes your costs exceed your revenue, then you are not technically profitable. Especially in instances like this, when the taxpayers decide they don't want to pay for your costs anymore
"Intrinsically better" - whatever that is supposed to mean - has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about whether it's better for the DC government as that's what's driving the DC government's decision.
If you reduce a portion of the people on public aid to partial aid, you still have the administrative cost of distributing that aid, so you're only saving the amount you're actually paying out. If you can move even a smaller portion off of the aid completely, you may be able to reduce the infrastructure you need to distribute the aid and save even more money. It's not like I have the numbers in front of me, but it isn't exactly perfectly clear which is better necessarily. Obviously lots of people on the DC council think the latter is going to be preferable. More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be.
> More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be.
That's an optimistic view of the government. I think it's more likely the government think that saying "Wal-Mart Bad!" will help them get elected.
I don't see any clear evidence from anyone here that preventing poor people from getting employment at WalMart in DC is going to improve their lives.
I think the council is hurting DC. Luckily, I recently moved out of DC, so I guess if they want to go out of their way to hurt their economy and give their lost opportunities to other districts/cities instead I'm fine with that.
There's no free lunch. The people who now won't be able to get a job will still need the food stamps to live, as well as additional government services to compensate.
There isn't any evidence that modest increases in the minimum wage increase unemployment. It's purely an article of theoretical faith that doesn't stand up empirically.
If a full time job doesn't pay enough for people to live on, then they will make up the difference with government assistance (e.g., my tax money).
I'd rather see them go on full government assistance, so they can spend full time looking for a job that DOES pay enough to live on. That costs more up front, but should cost less in the long run, and since I expect to be paying taxes for a long time I care more about the long run.
57 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadI'm not economist but how would this work...? It seems like an awful idea
If not, my response to that there should never be a 'comfortable wage'. Everyone needs that crappy job they hate - dishwasher, ditch digger - that pays nothing in order to motivate them to get out of said situation.
We all (most of us) worked that crappy job when we were younger, and hated it, and one of many reasons I stay motivated to provide value now is, well, because I don't want to be a dishwasher.
That's the beauty of The Market.
I think there is a reason for not having a mandatory comfortable wage; some people would simply not find jobs if we raised the minimum wage to a point were it becomes unprofitable to pay it. But that's the only reason for paying less. Not some BS sanctity of hard work thing.
Working at a crappy job causes suffering. Not having ANY job causes MORE suffering.
The solution you put forward (making crappy jobs illegal) is not somehow going to magically make poor people suffer less.
Oh, and how do you figure out which jobs are better? Hmm... maybe through some kind of market mechanism...
Minimum of course, is $7.25.
footoverhand: I want as many people to be able to work as possible. If you think it is too hard for people to live on the salaries that are available at their skill level, then by all means we can talk about improving the social safety net... but forcing companies to lay off people to maintain their salary budgets through salary controls is NOT a good way to help poor people.
No, I don't have a PhD in Economics and am willing to accept I could be wrong in this assessment.
EDIT: Oh, no one here likes this idea? Imagine that!
I have no particular love for walmart besides their knack for being good at delivering things efficiently (their aggressive use of eminent domain makes me angry). But laws should be fair and applied equitably. What this law is - is nothing but political posturing, demagoguery masked in the language of helping the less well off. I wonder, do the DC council members actually lift a hand to help out the people they say they care about, when a camera's not rolling?
Also, I agree it's where the government is heading. People need to learn that life is what they make it, not what is handed to them.
The fact that people in her time disagreed with these obvious things does not mean Ayn Rand was particularly prescient, it just means lots of people believe obviously wrong things.
I do however enjoy her non-fiction. Her arguments are much more concise (12 page explain her entirely philosophy as opposed to 1025 or w.e Atlas Shrugged was).
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732439940457858...
As a system admin, it's taken me 6 years after college to get back to the wage I made as a grocery store checker.
Congratulations on a job well done, DC Council!
If one of the most successful businesses in history can't find a way to turn a profit in one of the most populous, affluent areas in the country while paying employees enough to live in the same area, then maybe they shouldn't be in business after all. Like the article says, Wal-Mart needs DC. DC doesn't need Wal-Mart.
CostCo has no problems here and they pay around $15/hour.
Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
Poor people do not need more Country Clubs.
What will most likely happen is that SOME of those people will be able to get a job at a "responsible employer" but large numbers will become more destitute because of this decision.
Guess what: CostCo et al employ FEWER people per dollar people spend in the store, which is why they can afford the higher salaries. They do not somehow magically generate money out of thin air and hand it to their employees out of the goodness of their heart.
The cost of living in DC is extremely high. If most of the jobs created by Wal-Mart leave the employees still requiring food stamps, subsidized housing, and free clinics. What's the point to DC in allowing them here? They may as well have kept on paying those people the food stamps anyway, without the added harm of destroying the small business Wal-Mart is no doubt going to steamroll over, and contributing to the homogenization of the US into one long blur of identical national chain stores.
DC is not interested in subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs. If Wal-Mart can't afford to pay an actual wage that a person can live on without government assistance, then they aren't actually running a profitable enterprise. They're just leeching off the taxpayers.
This is the core flaw in your argument. First of all, it is obviously wrong on the surface (i.e. Wal-Mart reports profits every quarter) and even the argument you actually MEANT to make is wrong (No, it is not intrinsically better for society to have CostCo come in and hiring fewer employees and have more people needing full assistance, vs. WalMart come in and hiring more people needing partial assistance.)
If a portion of your costs are paid not by revenue, but by taxpayer subsidy, and if the loss of that subsidy makes your costs exceed your revenue, then you are not technically profitable. Especially in instances like this, when the taxpayers decide they don't want to pay for your costs anymore
"Intrinsically better" - whatever that is supposed to mean - has nothing to do with it, I'm talking about whether it's better for the DC government as that's what's driving the DC government's decision.
If you reduce a portion of the people on public aid to partial aid, you still have the administrative cost of distributing that aid, so you're only saving the amount you're actually paying out. If you can move even a smaller portion off of the aid completely, you may be able to reduce the infrastructure you need to distribute the aid and save even more money. It's not like I have the numbers in front of me, but it isn't exactly perfectly clear which is better necessarily. Obviously lots of people on the DC council think the latter is going to be preferable. More likely, they're trying to use what leverage they have as gatekeepers to a large market to extract as much benefit for the city as they can. That's as it should be.
That's an optimistic view of the government. I think it's more likely the government think that saying "Wal-Mart Bad!" will help them get elected.
I don't see any clear evidence from anyone here that preventing poor people from getting employment at WalMart in DC is going to improve their lives.
I think the council is hurting DC. Luckily, I recently moved out of DC, so I guess if they want to go out of their way to hurt their economy and give their lost opportunities to other districts/cities instead I'm fine with that.
We have just this problem in the UK (minimum adult wage around £6.20/h and 'liveable' wage put at £8.55/h by a pressure group with wide support [1].
The difference is funded through the benefit system (we have no truck with food stamps).
[1] http://www.livingwage.org.uk/
It's a strange idea that labor costs are the only costs that don't affect the decision making process of business owners in any way.
I'd rather see them go on full government assistance, so they can spend full time looking for a job that DOES pay enough to live on. That costs more up front, but should cost less in the long run, and since I expect to be paying taxes for a long time I care more about the long run.