QUORA: If employers say they can't pay their workers a living wage, sho
From
David P.@21:1/5 to
All on Sun Feb 26 16:17:19 2023
QUORA: If employers say they can't pay their workers a living wage, shouldn't they either revise their business model or admit their business has failed?
-----answered by Brandon Ross, Small-l libertarian, Feb 4, 2023
No, that’s a bit silly. The assertion makes a heavy assumption that the point of a wage is to be “life-style supporting”. That attaches your personal baggage and beliefs about what a wage should do. But that’s not a what a wage is.
A wage is just money paid to a person in exchange for their (typically hourly) work. If you try to cram it into a smaller box, you’re going to create some systemic problems. Which you aren’t worried about, but you would be.
A lot of jobs—typically aimed at younger people—aren’t meant to be a career. It’s a way to earn some extra saving or spending money. Typically when you have parental or external support. Should an uninvolved third-party force an arbitrary living
wage to be paid “because it’s necessary”—even if it isn’t in fact?
That’s a good way to kick young people right out of their first jobs. Or first job experiences. In doing so, you’re going to extend their periods of unemployment. Some countries have adopted several barrier policies like this, and perpetual youth
unemployment—leading into young adulthood—causes them other widespread social issues.
[I was going to add examples of businesses that have irregular and limited labor needs. But that’s pretty self-explanatory.]
If your goal is that you want a “living wage”, there are all manner of ways to get those jobs. But, the trouble is, that if you have no experience—give the high costs of hiring anyone—you’re less likely to get any job. It’s a bit of a paradox.
If, it weren’t very obvious why that happens.
Businesses that only need irregular labor—whether we like it or not—do provide some of those lower rungs where people can get into the job market. Save some money, while they can.
If however, you’re stuck in one of those jobs and trying to make a full-time career out of it—and very unhappy that isn't working—you need to do something more than be unhappy.
Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying you can't want to earn more. Or that you should not be paid more. Or any number of other statements outside the question.
The question is whether all businesses which don't pay “living wages" should revise their operations. And there's no way to contemplate all of these businesses simultaneously. But as a general principle, it doesn't follow that they should.
-------
[COMMENTS]
Andrew Kirk, Feb 4
Unfortunately, people in favor of a minimum wage come in three basic flavors. The third one is the most damaging.
The ones who have a myopic view of it. Either they would like to get more and think it would be “fair,” or they see individual sad stories and think of that as either representative of the entire population of minimum wage earners or sufficient
morally to justify forcing a minimum wage across the board, come what may.
The ones who simply do not understand the concept of supply and demand and only perceive that a business has a lot of money and must be able to afford to pay more. They don't understand profit margin, either. I once did a rough estimate of the raise
WalMart could give their workers if they eliminated ALL profit, and it was something dismal like $0.35/hr. They don’t have a sense of proportionality.
The ones who do not believe in capitalism and would be happy to crash the system and set up socialism. They understand that a high minimum wage means fewer jobs, and they think that the rich should transfer wealth to those who do not work. That will mean
everyone has a “living wage.” If this means that companies inevitably go out of business, so much the better; that will hasten the day when Marxism and the vaguely-defined “liberation” will come about. They do not understand that the bosses of
socialism are worse than the bosses of capitalism and that the worker in the end gets less—or, they envision themselves as one of those bosses.
So I think that your arguments, while sound, fall on deaf ears. The ones in category 3 actively use the reasoning of those in 1 and 2 to bring them on board for their agenda, concealing their true aims whenever necessary.
So I think we need to be somewhat more direct and straightforward.
You get a job to help out your family and, you live where you can.
Gain skills. Don't expect to be set for life because you have a low skill job. Move up the ladder.
Take pride in your accomplishments.
Don't envy those who have worked their way up.
Socialism will make you poor.
If you are already poor, socialism will make everyone else poor, too, but it will not make you better off, not for very long, anyway.
------------
Jack Paul, Feb 4
Also those who think that raising everyone’s wages is a good idea forget that it will lead to people either getting fired or reduced hours and therefore earning less than before. The more these people push for wage increases the more “machines
replacing people” seems better/more profitable.
-----------
Mark Barta, Feb 7
Or the position simply disappears outside of some extremely high tiered locations. So no attendant standing by in the restroom of a busy restaurant, instead they have someone check it every few hours. No doorman, no busboy, etc. Reduced kitchen staff by
using pre-made food items provided by vendors that they just have to reheat. So on and so forth. This is how you keep prices low when labor costs go up. You reduce your manpower requirements and “the market” becomes increasingly homogeneous
everywhere except where things are price insensitive (top 1% territory) because the “value added” options become cost ineffective.
-----------
David Quick, Feb 7
In our business no one lost a job. The price of everything just went up to pay the extra cost.
-------------
Michael Schmidt, Feb 8
That is the other problem. Increase the minimum wage peoples wages typically necessitates increasing everyone elses, and then to cover all those increases all the prices have to increase as well, which put the minimum wage people right back to not having
a “living wage”. Net result is a maintaining of the status quo but at a higher price level.
------------
Jack Paul, Feb 4
It is not the employer’s responsibility that an employee can make a “living wage” It is the employee’s responsibility to live on the wage they earn by cutting costs(expenses) in their life. Employers are not their new mommy and daddy.
------------
Michael Schmidt, Feb 8
Or by increasing their skill level and getting a better paying job. Or a second entry level job.
-----------
Jack Paul, Feb 8
In other words being responsible for themselves instead of expecting others to constantly make their life better whether that is a politician, an employer, charities, relatives, friends or “activists.” Personal responsibility works much better than
entitlement and dependence. Dependence leads to victimhood and entltement leads to poverty or jail or both.
-----------
Hahn Ackles, Feb 5
Tell me you’ve never been poor without telling me you’ve never been poor. ---------
David Quick, Feb 6
I totally agree with Jack, When I was 19 I was married and in the military. My take home pay was $460 per month. It was not enough. My wife took a job the paid minimum wage. Still not enough but we made it work. Our total income was maybe $16k a year. My
entire pay went for rent.
We did what was necessary to improve our situation. I went back to school, she became a wizard at managing businesses. We took responsibility for our lives and have never been on the dole. Neither of us have ever been unemployed because we provide good
value to our employers and were rewarded for it.
Today our income is in the mid 6 figures and we own a business that she runs. We hire in at minimum wage but almost no one stays there for long. Because we hire mostly students we know and they know they are not going to be with us for more than a couple
of years. It is exactly the model that the minimum wage was made to support.
Bottom line, those jobs are not now or ever intended to be a career they are meant to help while you learn a trade, go to school to move to a living wage job.
-----------
Jack Scheible, Feb 7
“If you need a wife, we will issue you one.”
------------
Mark Barta, Feb 6
Tell me the attendant behind the concessions counter at your local movie theater should be entitled to a living wage of $30/hour in NYC for performing a task that could be done by a 4th grader with minimal accommodations if not for legal restrictions
preventing it.
------------
Hahn Ackles, Feb 7
You’ve never worked a concessions job, have you? How much money do you think is worth literally having people scream at you and treat you like dirt all day?
-----------
Mark Barta, Feb 7
In fact, I have, as a “tween” no less. (Volunteers aren't subject to age restrictions in the same way)
Abusive customers are a side issue from the minimum skills required to work at concessions. In any case, abusive customers are referrals to shift/assistant managers, or the manager themselves. Not the front line customer service person acting as cashier.
“My apologies sir/ma'am, if you would like to pursue this issue further, could you please go speak to ____ over there? If you would like, I can accompany you.”
----------
Blake Berlin, Feb 7
The job takes little skill. I'd say it is worth $1 per hour, and worth a bit more for the tolerance required.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)