Minimum Wage

[GranTurNismo]

Why is it that you view unpaid work as a stepping stone to future sufficient compensation, but not low paid work? You don't stop gaining skills and improving your opportunities and potential to create future value simply because someone hands you a few bucks.

Low-wage jobs, such as "flipping burgers" for an example, can be a stepping stone to higher-wage employment in the future, but unlike internships, is not by its very nature. The majority of low-wage workers are not teenagers and instead rely on that income to support themselves. Oftentimes, it is not enough to meet basic needs, which is why many of them fall behind on basic expenses such as rent and utilities and live in illegally subletted apartments as that is all they can afford. If your max. education level, is high school or less, are disabled, are an undocumented immigrant, have a criminal past, or live in area where low-wage jobs are the only jobs available, chances are that job is not a stepping stone at all. But as aforementioned, the literal purpose of an internship is to gain skills. Gaining skills can be a result of working a low page job, but this is not the purpose for the majority of individuals who take that job.

Unpaid internships are a joke, at least in the field I'm in. It's getting free labor out of someone while they do 80% of what I do. That isn't ideal, but the older generation has pushed onto the younger generation so much that they need to do this it's become the norm for college kids. I never took an unpaid internship and the only "free" work I ever did was on an archaeology project that I was interested in. Sure I gained experience, but it was more of a volunteer thing than anything else. No one should work for free though unless it's volunteer work, with how the economy is setup in the US, you exchange goods/services for money, which means you're exchanging your time, effort, knowledge, etc. for a paycheck. I suppose the only stipulation would be is if you're earning college credits in your internship since you're getting something in return.

Well, most internships are volunteer work. Doing administrative work for a housing authority and voter outreach/donor research for my congressman would definitely be volunteering for me. Also, it seems that the majority of internships are not unpaid; a quick Google search shows that 61% of all internships in the US are paid. Though I would also assume that paid internships are often more advanced and laborious than unpaid ones.

I don't know, even at 60%, you're not going to make a living wage. In Salt Lake City, the median income is $31,000 which means the minimum wage would be $18,600 or about $9 an hour at 40 hours per week before the city, state, and federal taxes. You're not living in SLC for $9 an hour and the likelihood you even find someone to rent you a studio apartment is low and that's if you can find a place to rent in the first place. Even if you were working 80 hours a week that's less than $38,000 a year and that's might be just enough to score you a studio apartment in a "bad" area. Even then you're still shelling out at least $1,000 a month for rent.

It seems like we should be looking at how to decrease the cost of living instead of setting a number people should get paid. If everyone working was suddenly making more money, there would be more demand for things, and prices would go up. That would put us right back to square one where people. There would also, inevitably, be the company that cuts hours so they don't have to pay a certain wage to their employees. I know that's not exactly the best business strategy but it has to work on some level since companies do it.

It does seem as if Salt Lake City has an average income significantly less than the surrounding suburbs/metropolitan area. The SLC metro area average income is slightly over $60,000. The general COL does seem to be slightly higher in SLC than the rest of the US. Therefore, a $9 minimum wage would not be sufficient nor anywhere close to 60% of the metro area's median wage. I think I should've better articulated that in terms of the min. wage varying from place, it should not vary by individual municipality, but by the metro area as a whole. In most metro areas there are towns that vastly vary in income, so each one having it's own required minimum wage would be ridiculous, quite frankly.

What ways do you suggest that the cost of living can be lowered? All I'm saying is that the lowest possible wages should be just enough to get by regardless of the area's cost of living. Of course higher minimum wages would naturally increase demand and price level, but that is offset by an entire underclass gaining more purchasing power, which is put back into the economy and allows the creation of new jobs. That's why the 60% number is so important; according to economist Richard Wolff, 60% of the area's median wage is the highest minimum wages can be without causing drastic unemployment or causing the general PL to increase unsustainably.

There are a lot of ideas I dislike but like better than minimum wage. Ideas like subsidized housing, "earned income" tax credits, welfare, and food stamps.

Perhaps we should just offer government work to everyone that wants it for some basic wage level. That would effectively set a floor for other employers, and at least those people could gain skills and become employed in the future.

I'm imagining some kind of $10/hr government "internship" which includes mostly basic education and job training for adults. Honestly I'd rather that the government paid people directly than that it set a wage floor.

So, a federal jobs guarantee? I've seen this idea being floated around by a decent amount of progressives. I could see this being successful, especially in areas where a large number of the jobs have deteriorated, such as in the rust belt and Appalachia. Ideally, many of these jobs would be infrastructure-related and pay a variety of different wages, since compared to other nations, the US's infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads/mass transit, etc) are in grave disrepair. Though, this of course depends on whether the government is even willing to invest in infrastructure.

 

[Danoff]

Low-wage jobs, such as "flipping burgers" for an example, can be a stepping stone to higher-wage employment in the future, but unlike internships, is not by its very nature.

It is. Holding a job is proof that you can show up to work and actually do what you're told.

The majority of low-wage workers are not teenagers and instead rely on that income to support themselves. Oftentimes, it is not enough to meet basic needs, which is why many of them fall behind on basic expenses such as rent and utilities and live in illegally subletted apartments as that is all they can afford. If your max. education level, is high school or less

Didn't I tell you about my friend who has a high school education and makes 6 figures? I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. This ^ bit clearly misses the point I was making, which is that minimum wage is a stumbling block for the very people you're talking about.

, are disabled,

I feel like we've done this before, this is charity.

are an undocumented immigrant,

We've definitely done this before. Undocumented immigrants do not have to make minimum wage because they're undocumented.

have a criminal past,

This is a broader discussion of the criminal justice system.

or live in area where low-wage jobs are the only jobs available,

Turns out you're stuck where you live huh?

chances are that job is not a stepping stone at all.

The demographics of people that make minimum wage suggests that it is a stepping stone for a lot of people. It's a very transitory group. That's not to say nobody in that group stays put.

But as aforementioned, the literal purpose of an internship is to gain skills. Gaining skills can be a result of working a low page job, but this is not the purpose for the majority of individuals who take that job.

I think this is pulled from... thin air. You're trying to differentiate two extremely similar and overlapping concepts, which are often used in a very compatible way. Until you've reached the pinnacle of your career, your job is for the purpose of gaining skills for the next one and making money... both. This describes most working people.

Well, most internships are volunteer work. Doing administrative work for a housing authority and voter outreach/donor research for my congressman would definitely be volunteering for me. Also, it seems that the majority of internships are not unpaid; a quick Google search shows that 61% of all internships in the US are paid. Though I would also assume that paid internships are often more advanced and laborious than unpaid ones.

...kinda undermines your point above right?

So, a federal jobs guarantee? I've seen this idea being floated around by a decent amount of progressives. I could see this being successful, especially in areas where a large number of the jobs have deteriorated, such as in the rust belt and Appalachia. Ideally, many of these jobs would be infrastructure-related and pay a variety of different wages, since compared to other nations, the US's infrastructure (roads, bridges, railroads/mass transit, etc) are in grave disrepair. Though, this of course depends on whether the government is even willing to invest in infrastructure.

I like it better than minimum wage. I also like just handing out cash annually as a tax rebate, even to people who didn't pay taxes, better than minimum wage. Some sort of annual stipend - kinda like "earned income" but clearer and for everyone. What's needed is not so much to take care of people, but to make it clear that we do. Because we do. It's just that the way we do is hard to see, and convoluted, and sometimes hard to access.

I worked with the local city to get approved for special needs teaching for my daughter (which includes some city assistance for poorer families with needy kids). And I can definitely say that the number of hoops to jump through is daunting. There is money available to help out, but it's so convoluted that to even explain how to access it is hard to do, let alone to point to what's there. We need something clearer, so that it's harder for folks to just assume that people aren't getting the support that they actually are.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Californians have just rejected a referendum (Proposition 32) that would raise the statewide minimum wage from $16/hr to $18/hr (and the minimum wage right now is also $20/hr for certain fast-food workers and $25/hr for healthcare aides), by 2026. This is the first time that any state has rejected a minimum wage hike via referendum since 1996. Interestingly enough, the state's higher income counties (including every Bay Area county) largely voted yes, while poorer counties such as in the Inland Empire and majority Latino rural counties, overwhelmingly voted no.

Both state leaders and economists predicted Prop 32 would pass and struggle to pinpoint an all-encompassing reason why it failed. Some argue that most Californians believe that the minimum wage is already high enough (as a majority of Californians don't actually live in the most notoriously high-COL areas like SF/LA proper), and that an increase to $18 would be more than what workers in these professions can earn. Others worry that this move, affecting over 2 million California workers, would only prolong inflation.

California voters reject measure that would have raised minimum wage to nation-high $18 per hour

California voters have rejected a measure on the November ballot that would have raised the minimum wage for most workers to $18 an hour.

apnews.com

Proposition 32 was just rejected. In blue California, why did the minimum-wage boost fail?

California's voters typically lean heavily to the left. So, why did a minimum-wage boost fail?

www.latimes.com

I think the biggest takeaway here is that minimum wage should be set by counties/metro areas and not statewide. $18/hr is still not a living wage anywhere in the Bay Area and many of the lowest earning workers already make that wage, or even slightly more. While $18/hr is much more livable in areas such as Imperial County or Humboldt. Also, we need more housing. The biggest reason people want minimum wage increases is because they can't afford rent, and rents won't come down unless housing (especially for lower income folks) is built. Based on the results of Prop 32, many Californians nominally support progressive policies but leary about actually implementing them, and nothing could possibly sum up the California housing crisis better than this sentiment- everyone can agree more housing is needed, yet many will do anything in their power to ensure it doesn't get built/come to their neighborhood. Usually hiding behind reasons such as density, "character of the neighborhood", endangered species in the area, etc.