'Real Change for Workers': Living Wage Backers Declare Victory in Local Election

[The Rabbi]

My neighbor is a union rep for Lockheed in Marietta, Ga. He is always talking about "living wage" and everyone should get at least $15 a hour.
And he posted on Facebook last week "our maid needs extra work with illness in the family. $10 ahour and she can work nights and weekends"
The typical liberal. Do as I say, not as I do.

Why doesnt he pay her $15/hr as a living wage?

 

[Contumacious]

[MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION]

The government imposes many regulations on business that drive up costs, and it's always debatable whether the overall benefits of the regulation outweigh the increased costs of doing business. If you believe there is never any benefit to a minimum wage at any level, and therefore it's never a good idea, then just say so. And maybe we can explore that idea.

But repeating the $50/hr argument over and over serves only to convince me that you're not actually interested in an open discussion about your alleged ideals.

The fact that you want to just dismiss the argument tells me you can't actually argue it. Why is $15/hr alright and $50/hr not? That's easy. One you can sell emotionally the other you can't.

The rational between both is the same though. Both are going to have the same consequences IE Artificially raising labor costs, increasing unemployment, and inflating the currency. The only difference is in degrees.

The difference in degrees makes all the difference.

I never argued that a minimum wage doesn't raise labor costs. It would be pretty stupid to believe that. The question here, which all of you don't want to consider, is whether there is an overall benefit to having a minimum wage that justifies the increased costs.

That is a question for THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS to determine.

If the owners disagree with you that paying you $25.00 an hour to remove pubic hairs from the urinals is too much then resign and go elsewhere.

.

 

[manifold]

I am concerned with your argument that $50 is too much but 12 or 15 (which is it, btw?) is just right. Why don't we start with you explaining why that is the right level for a min wage and then we can go on to my argument why we dont need one at all.

"need" is a strong word.

But regardless, I'm more interested in why you think we'd be better off without one at any level. I don't see any point in haggling over the level until we've dealt with that. So in the interests of moving this debate along, I hereby rescind my previous comment and say that a level of $3/hour seems like a reasonable floor. An hour of man's time should certainly be worth at least that much, right?

No. $3/hr might be too high for some jobs.
But OK, I'll give you a pass here and go on to my argument.

Wages represent value of labor for the employer. Take a welder for example, which is pretty highly skilled work. But a welder isn't worth $5/hr to me because I dont run a welding shop. But for someone who does, his welder could allow him to make X many dollars in profit by employing him. If he's a good welder, he is worth more because he works more quickly with fewer mistakes. A bad welder, less money. But there is some limit to what the welder can be paid. As crucial as his job might be, it isn't worth $500/hr because paying him that much will cost all the profit the company makes. And what's the point of running the company in taht case? Also you could hire another welder for less. Or hire someone and send him to welding school for even less.
So there is a market level for a welder, because every shop that employs welders is competing for that welder's services.
Now, just like the welder, unskilled labor is also subject to a market, with many employers competing for unskilled labor. So there is a natural rate, a market rate, that unskilled labor commands.
If you set a min wage higher than that market rate, you eliminate all the jobs that would exist in its absence. It is not simply luck that you don't see gas jockeys or theater ushers anymore. In my childhood, 60's and early 70s, those jobs were always filled by either kids or retired people.
So the choice is not between jobs at $8/hr or jobs at $15/hr. It is a choice between jobs at 8/hr or no jobs at all. And if you look at teen unemployment rate (teenagers being the most likely to work min wage jobs) you find that in fact rises in teen unemployment virtually mirror rises in the min wage.
I would like to hire someone to sweep my floor in my little shop. If i could hire someone for $2/hr I would. Maybe no one wants to work for that wage. Maybe the retired guy next door is bored and would do it just to get out of the house and earn a little pocket money. W ith min wage laws he loses that choice. It isn't worth $10/hr for me to pay him to sweep out my shop. I'll do it myself for that amount. That is how jobs disappear.

Most of those jobs didn't disappear, they're just under the table. Except for gas jockeys, they were done in by technology. And my cinema is pretty heavily staffed with ushers, so not sure what you're talking about there. That said, I still understand your arguments, but when the real choice is between a 'living' wage and a 'living' welfare check, I'll vote for the wage every time.

 

[manifold]

The fact that you want to just dismiss the argument tells me you can't actually argue it. Why is $15/hr alright and $50/hr not? That's easy. One you can sell emotionally the other you can't.

The rational between both is the same though. Both are going to have the same consequences IE Artificially raising labor costs, increasing unemployment, and inflating the currency. The only difference is in degrees.

The difference in degrees makes all the difference.

I never argued that a minimum wage doesn't raise labor costs. It would be pretty stupid to believe that. The question here, which all of you don't want to consider, is whether there is an overall benefit to having a minimum wage that justifies the increased costs.

That is a question for THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS to determine.

If the owners disagree with you that paying you $25.00 an hour to remove pubic hairs from the urinals is too much then resign and go elsewhere.

.

Just like it was up to the banks to determine the appropriate amount of investment risk they wanted to put on the books, right?

 

[manifold]

The sillyness of throwing your own statement under the bus and then claiming to stand beside it nothwithstanding,

Now there is some logic contortion that is extreme even for you...

I think we both agree that predicting an officially recorded unemployment rate of 70% is absurd, so I won't try to hold you to that. But surely some of the adverse impact would have to show up on recorded unemployment statistics. Right now it's 6%, two years ago it was 11.9%. Where do you see it twelve months from now?

IF this were a state wide proposal, the unemployment would sky rocket. But we are speaking of a single city, which is a suburb of a large city. Since business not exempted will see a 60% increase in labor costs, they will have to either lay off 60% of their workforce, or close the business and relocate to an area not hostile to business.

A few flaws in your question, though: First off, the unemployment rate in Seattle is 5.2%, not 6%. Secondly, there appears to be no independent rate listed for SeaTac.

Rise in Seattle-area jobless rate defies trend | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

Upon further research, it also appears that SeaTac is owned by the Unions - 100%. The community is formed around the Seattle-Tacoma Airport. The measure was promoted by the AFL-CIO for the purpose of unionizing the concessions in the airport - this is 100% corruption at work - organized crime. So the large concessions such as McDonalds and Taco Bell will close - leaving shitty stands that will be union run. The result is that travelers will pay $20 for a burger that was made the day before and microwaved by some union moron.

So you don't want to bet then?

PS: I found SeaTac only unemployment figures.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just like it was up to the banks to determine the appropriate amount of investment risk they wanted to put on the books, right?

Yes.

But considering that corrupt politicians use taxpayer's money to bail out those banks anytime things go wrong, the investment risk was and is zero.

 

[The Rabbi]

"need" is a strong word.

But regardless, I'm more interested in why you think we'd be better off without one at any level. I don't see any point in haggling over the level until we've dealt with that. So in the interests of moving this debate along, I hereby rescind my previous comment and say that a level of $3/hour seems like a reasonable floor. An hour of man's time should certainly be worth at least that much, right?

No. $3/hr might be too high for some jobs.
But OK, I'll give you a pass here and go on to my argument.

Wages represent value of labor for the employer. Take a welder for example, which is pretty highly skilled work. But a welder isn't worth $5/hr to me because I dont run a welding shop. But for someone who does, his welder could allow him to make X many dollars in profit by employing him. If he's a good welder, he is worth more because he works more quickly with fewer mistakes. A bad welder, less money. But there is some limit to what the welder can be paid. As crucial as his job might be, it isn't worth $500/hr because paying him that much will cost all the profit the company makes. And what's the point of running the company in taht case? Also you could hire another welder for less. Or hire someone and send him to welding school for even less.
So there is a market level for a welder, because every shop that employs welders is competing for that welder's services.
Now, just like the welder, unskilled labor is also subject to a market, with many employers competing for unskilled labor. So there is a natural rate, a market rate, that unskilled labor commands.
If you set a min wage higher than that market rate, you eliminate all the jobs that would exist in its absence. It is not simply luck that you don't see gas jockeys or theater ushers anymore. In my childhood, 60's and early 70s, those jobs were always filled by either kids or retired people.
So the choice is not between jobs at $8/hr or jobs at $15/hr. It is a choice between jobs at 8/hr or no jobs at all. And if you look at teen unemployment rate (teenagers being the most likely to work min wage jobs) you find that in fact rises in teen unemployment virtually mirror rises in the min wage.
I would like to hire someone to sweep my floor in my little shop. If i could hire someone for $2/hr I would. Maybe no one wants to work for that wage. Maybe the retired guy next door is bored and would do it just to get out of the house and earn a little pocket money. W ith min wage laws he loses that choice. It isn't worth $10/hr for me to pay him to sweep out my shop. I'll do it myself for that amount. That is how jobs disappear.

Most of those jobs didn't disappear, they're just under the table. Except for gas jockeys, they were done in by technology. And my cinema is pretty heavily staffed with ushers, so not sure what you're talking about there. That said, I still understand your arguments, but when the real choice is between a 'living' wage and a 'living' welfare check, I'll vote for the wage every time.

Why do you suppose they're under the table?
And why do you suppose gas stations invested in technology rather than keep their gas jockeys?
The choice is not between a living wage and a welfare check. The choice is between a paycheck, however small, and welfare.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just like it was up to the banks to determine the appropriate amount of investment risk they wanted to put on the books, right?

Yes.

But considering that corrupt politicians use taxpayer's money to bail out those banks anytime things go wrong, the investment risk was and is zero.

Yes, it should be up to the banks to decide what kind of risk they want to take. And in the absence of the gov't those choices would have consequences. In the old days the bank's board of directors were personally liable for depositors' funds. They were far more cautious, of course. Now with gov't backing deposits there is little incentive not to take the risk. And with Too Big To Fail essentially in the law, there is every incentive to move in to bonehead stupid investments that might pay off.

 

[Contumacious]

The difference in degrees makes all the difference.

I never argued that a minimum wage doesn't raise labor costs. It would be pretty stupid to believe that. The question here, which all of you don't want to consider, is whether there is an overall benefit to having a minimum wage that justifies the increased costs.

That is a question for THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESS to determine.

If the owners disagree with you that paying you $25.00 an hour to remove pubic hairs from the urinals is too much then resign and go elsewhere.

.

Just like it was up to the banks to determine the appropriate amount of investment risk they wanted to put on the books, right?

Wrong again.
0-2

It was up to the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD - the central bank has been regulating credit and banking since 1913.

Where have you been?

.

 

[manifold]

The choice is between a paycheck, however small, and welfare.

And what exactly do you think the choice will be when the welfare check is larger than the paycheck?

 

[The Rabbi]

The choice is between a paycheck, however small, and welfare.

And what exactly do you think the choice will be when the welfare check is larger than the paycheck?

We already know the answer to that one. We see it every day. We are there already.
But some people don't want welfare and would rather work. Not the majority, maybe. But defintely some. And they can't because their job skills don't warrant even min wage.
How is that fair to anyone?

btw you skipped answering the question on why the jobs mentioned went underground.

 

[manifold]

And why do you suppose gas stations invested in technology rather than keep their gas jockeys?

Because it became available at cost that supported a positive return on investment.

 

[manifold]

The choice is between a paycheck, however small, and welfare.

And what exactly do you think the choice will be when the welfare check is larger than the paycheck?

We already know the answer to that one. We see it every day. We are there already.
But some people don't want welfare and would rather work. Not the majority, maybe. But defintely some. And they can't because their job skills don't warrant even min wage.
How is that fair to anyone?

I don't imagine the world is populated with very many "boyscouts" who would turn down a welfare check when they can't even earn the same amount working. What most would do is take the welfare check and work under the table.

 

[The Rabbi]

And why do you suppose gas stations invested in technology rather than keep their gas jockeys?

Because it became available at cost that supported a positive return on investment.

As opposed to the alterntive, which was paying someone more money. The min wage increase priced those services out of the market.
Which is exactly my point.

 

[The Rabbi]

And what exactly do you think the choice will be when the welfare check is larger than the paycheck?

We already know the answer to that one. We see it every day. We are there already.
But some people don't want welfare and would rather work. Not the majority, maybe. But defintely some. And they can't because their job skills don't warrant even min wage.
How is that fair to anyone?

I don't imagine the world is populated with very many "boyscouts" who would turn down a welfare check when they can't even earn the same amount working. What most would do is take the welfare check and work under the table.

All of the scenarios are likely.

 

[manifold]

And why do you suppose gas stations invested in technology rather than keep their gas jockeys?

Because it became available at cost that supported a positive return on investment.

As opposed to the alterntive, which was paying someone more money. The min wage increase priced those services out of the market.
Which is exactly my point.

I know for a fact that declining costs in the technology were just as big a factor, if not a lot bigger.

 

[manifold]

Because it became available at cost that supported a positive return on investment.

As opposed to the alterntive, which was paying someone more money. The min wage increase priced those services out of the market.
Which is exactly my point.

I know for a fact that declining costs in the technology were just as big a factor, if not a lot bigger.

Not to mention shifting consumer attitudes.

I'd much rather pump my own gas than have some fuckwit do it who doesn't give a shit if he spills gas all over my car. That's why it pisses me off when I get gas in New Jersey and I'm not allowed to pump it myself.

 

[The Rabbi]

As opposed to the alterntive, which was paying someone more money. The min wage increase priced those services out of the market.
Which is exactly my point.

I know for a fact that declining costs in the technology were just as big a factor, if not a lot bigger.

Not to mention shifting consumer attitudes.

I'd much rather pump my own gas than have some fuckwit do it who doesn't give a shit if he spills gas all over my car. That's why it pisses me off when I get gas in New Jersey and I'm not allowed to pump it myself.

There were two factors: declining cost of technology and higher wages for workers.
A lot of people would prefer to have the happy helpful attendent pump their gas and check their oil etc.

But I see I've made my point here. The min wage destroys jobs, esp for those most vulnerable in the economy.

 

[Redfish]

I know so many of you justify being jerks to others as "calling you as you see it". But that doesn't make it right.

How are we supposed to unite the nation behind the truth if we use it to gratify our own pride rather than to reach out and lift up our fellow citizens?

You realize that being unkind to people just gives them ammunition to completely ignore the message and go after you? It solves nothing. You think it persuades people on the fence to come to you when you treat others like they are pieces of crap? Im sorry, but that's nonsense.

Our goal should be reconiliation behind the truth. With Malice towards none and charity towards all. The Robbers win when we act like them.

of course you are correct. But our national dialog has been destroyed as our culture has been destroyed. We are all victims of ghetto language that is used by hollywood, TV, and the music industry. Now, even the once civil congress has resorted to vile name calling.

I try to resist it, but sometimes we have to play by the same rules as everyone else if we are going to be in the game.

 

[manifold]

I know for a fact that declining costs in the technology were just as big a factor, if not a lot bigger.

Not to mention shifting consumer attitudes.

I'd much rather pump my own gas than have some fuckwit do it who doesn't give a shit if he spills gas all over my car. That's why it pisses me off when I get gas in New Jersey and I'm not allowed to pump it myself.

There were two factors: declining cost of technology and higher wages for workers.
A lot of people would prefer to have the happy helpful attendent pump their gas and check their oil etc.

But I see I've made my point here. The min wage destroys jobs, esp for those most vulnerable in the economy.

The more I think about it, the more I say your gas jockey example doesn't hold water.

A. I was a gas jockey myself and made a few dollars more per hour than the minimum wage at the time.

B. I've actually run the numbers for a gas station chain that wanted to upgrade their pumps to go self-service. The labor costs in that analysis were also considerably higher than the minimum wage.

So I stands to reason that the minimum wage had nothing to do with the elimination of gas jockey jobs.