Have We Angered The Economy?

[TCABM]

…Raising a family of four is not a survival wage. But, yes, as a nation we should have a very serious conversation about declining birthrates and whether or not we want to do anything about them. Not being able to make enough to support a family is a driving factor in that decision for tons of people. …..

Historically, increased financial resources drives decreasing birth rates however those births are also generally healthier with lower mortality rates for mother and infant.

Birth rate by poverty status in the U.S. 2023 | Statista

In 2023, women in households with an income below the poverty threshold had the highest birth rate in the United States, at 72 births per 1,000 women.

www.statista.com

If I understand your position correctly, you believe by simply increasing pay a result will be an expansion of the population and collectively, “we” should be advocating for what decisions people should make when it comes to becoming a parent. Is that correct?

 

[172andyou]

Historically, increased financial resources drives decreasing birth rates however those births are also generally healthier with lower mortality rates for mother and infant.

Birth rate by poverty status in the U.S. 2023 | Statista

In 2023, women in households with an income below the poverty threshold had the highest birth rate in the United States, at 72 births per 1,000 women.

www.statista.com

If I understand your position correctly, you believe by simply increasing pay a result will be an expansion of the population and collectively, “we” should be advocating for what decisions people should make when it comes to becoming a parent. Is that correct?

No, my position is that we should be having a serious discussion about pay and family size and that, in real life, plenty of people have fewer kids for economic reasons. That can be true even if people in poverty on average have more kids.

I'm not even taking a position that a shrinking population is a bad thing. But I'm aware that many people are very concerned about it and am mystified that there isn't a more significant discussion taking place. Heck, I've written extensively here about the next 100 years being a century in which the need for human labor essentially goes away. If that's true, then a shrinking population will be an economic non-event.

 

[172andyou]

How old were those kids? I'm guessing they were in high school? Then NO.
Part of what gets lost is the numerous opportunities for teens to have a job that taught them how to be on time, have responsibility etc. That used to be one of the primary roles of fast food establishments.

I think we're into the realm of axioms here. One of mine is the government is best that governs least. So I prefer a simpler system than a more complex 'micromanagey' one. Given that, I don't see any benefit sufficient to putting together a set of rules that allow lower than survival wages in some circumstances. If the job needs to be done, then the worker deserves to be compensated. I don't particularly want rules that say, 'well, if the laborer is 16, living at home and flipping burgers then the wage is X. But, if they are 16 and emancipated and supporting themself then its Y. And the day they turn 18, then it increased by Z. Unless they are in college on a scholarship, then it's still X. But if they are paying for their own school, then it's back to Z'.

So, YMMV, but I'm advocating for a simple system that risks a few kids living at home being paid a fair wage for their labor, instead of a simple system where some people aren't making what they need to or a complex system that makes everything really hard to understand.

 

[Bell206]

It's more complicated than that.

Not in my experience as a business owner and employee. The complexity comes from the social issue side which the government holds most of the blame. I’ve personally found people who want to excel in life find the necessary paths to achieve that regardless social status.

 

[TCABM]

No, my position is that we should be having a serious discussion about pay and family size and that, in real life, plenty of people have fewer kids for economic reasons..

Okay; we have a fundamental difference of opinion then. I find both social/societal and economic factors contribute people having fewer kids.

I also find that peeling the economic reasons onion finds debt load to more influential than pay. If there’s something to having a conversation on it basic financial management.

 

[172andyou]

Okay; we have a fundamental difference of opinion then. I find both social/societal and economic factors contribute people having fewer kids.

I think we agree. At least I agree with that second sentence and don't think I said anything contrary.

I also find that peeling the economic reasons onion finds debt load to more influential than pay. If there’s something to having a conversation on it basic financial management.

Basic financial management is hard to argue against. But we're not even to that point yet. The current discussion is whether or not to even pay people enough to survive. A survival wage is, by definition, barely enough to get by and people earning it will need to exercise very careful financial management. But several people on this thread are saying, 'nah, they don't even deserve to make that much'.

 

[TCABM]

….Basic financial management is hard to argue against. But we're not even to that point yet. The current discussion is whether or not to even pay people enough to survive. A survival wage is, by definition, barely enough to get by….

Considering debt load, location, and availability to work, a survival wage is highly variable.

For the high-school sophomore living at home, one could easily argue they should not work at all since their financial needs are being met by someone else. For emancipated minors, one could argue they shouldn’t even be in school since it’s hard to find a part time job that covers food and rent, even with a roommate.

The crux of ‘one size fits all’ conversations is that rarely does on size actually fit all.

 

[172andyou]

Not in my experience as a business owner and employee. The complexity comes from the social issue side which the government holds most of the blame. I’ve personally found people who want to excel in life find the necessary paths to achieve that regardless social status.

What about those who don't want to excel? Do they not deserve to be able to make enough to survive by providing labor that some business needs for its own survival? What about the people with the 80IQ that are never going to do skilled work, but show up every day and do as they are told? My taxes should make up for the fact that Walmart doesn't pay them enough to get by? The people with ADHD or depression or dyslexia or dysgraphia that will never be able to "find the necessary paths to achieve'? If they are high functioning enough to stock shelves overnight, should my taxes be paying for their housing? Or should their employer?

 

[172andyou]

The crux of ‘one size fits all’ conversations is that rarely does on size actually fit all.

Absolutely

 

[Hang 4]

What about those who don't want to excel? Do they not deserve to be able to make enough to survive by providing labor that some business needs for its own survival? What about the people with the 80IQ that are never going to do skilled work, but show up every day and do as they are told? My taxes should make up for the fact that Walmart doesn't pay them enough to get by? The people with ADHD or depression or dyslexia or dysgraphia that will never be able to "find the necessary paths to achieve'? If they are high functioning enough to stock shelves overnight, should my taxes be paying for their housing? Or should their employer?

There's a huge difference between "those who don't want to excel" and the disabled. Very few would argue against a safety net for those who need it through no choice of their own. Some one that is too lazy to work, sorry but not with my tax $. There's a lot of gray between those two places which is why this is not a simple issue.
There's good evidence that raising minimum wage reduces jobs. Seattle has seen restaurants close when they imposed a higher minimum wage on tipped workers as one example. The notion that all this gets paid for by evil corporations kind of falls down when you look at small businesses that provide a lot of the lower paying jobs. Another point is why the cost of living is so high in certain places. Zoning, NIMBY pressures on affordable housing etc will not be impacted by raising a minimum wage, prices, including housing will just rise further and the cycle will continue ad infinitum.
Lastly, who figures out who deserves what? That's where this really starts to crumble. The "deciders" have huge power, which is a short road to massive corruption. Adam Smith was not a moron.

 

[WJG-GMT-RootBeer]

There's a huge difference between "those who don't want to excel" and the disabled. Very few would argue against a safety net for those who need it through no choice of their own. Some one that is too lazy to work, sorry but not with my tax $. There's a lot of gray between those two places which is why this is not a simple issue.
There's good evidence that raising minimum wage reduces jobs. Seattle has seen restaurants close when they imposed a higher minimum wage on tipped workers as one example. The notion that all this gets paid for by evil corporations kind of falls down when you look at small businesses that provide a lot of the lower paying jobs. Another point is why the cost of living is so high in certain places. Zoning, NIMBY pressures on affordable housing etc will not be impacted by raising a minimum wage, prices, including housing will just rise further and the cycle will continue ad infinitum.
Lastly, who figures out who deserves what? That's where this really starts to crumble. The "deciders" have huge power, which is a short road to massive corruption. Adam Smith was not a moron.

Thomas Sowell makes these points with elegance. Social policy is always a tradeoff. How you see it probably depends on your circumstances. I don't think there is any dispute that raising any cost on an employer can lead to less employment. Cost of living is clearly a growing problem, even for the middle class, let alone the lower income brackets. This seems poised to increase greatly as a result of governmental money creation--the one thing neither party will do is to seriously tackle expenditures---which mean more debasement of fiat. Inflation isn't some magical occurrence. Some argue that it was not really even a "thing" until the FED was created.

 

[geezer]

A good friend had a nephew, low IQ. She got him a decent paying government job that paid a real living wage. He had an apartment within walking distance of work, and whatever he wanted to eat.
The person that managed him moved to another job, he applied for the vacancy, and someone else was selected (Qualified for the job)
Mr. low IQ sued, and won.
With no supervisory skills, the work product fell to near zero.
He was fired, the previous selectee reinstated.

Nephew lost his apartment, moved in with friends of similar IQ, and without a previous good job report, was basically un employable.

There are not many places that will pay an "Expert Xerox Operator" good wages to read the number of copies attached to the original, punch that into the screen, and feed the document into the automatic feeder.

Where I worked, the secretary took her document to the machine, started it, and left a note for the next user to send the output to her.

He was not qualified to become a flipper at MCD, but deserves a job that will pay him enough to marry and have kids, with a nice house/apartment.

Marginally, he had that at the Xerox machine.


Where I normally eat, the wait staff is majority high school and college students, part time, limited to assure they have adequate study time. Their pay is above the minimum, but much less than the full timers, who have the additional duty of training the part timers. Many go on to college, and continue to work as waitpersons, and there is a big party when they graduate.


The full time employees earn a living wage, and have families.

This frame work makes sense to me.

 

[schmookeeg]

What about those who don't want to excel? Do they not deserve to be able to make enough to survive by providing labor that some business needs for its own survival? What about the people with the 80IQ that are never going to do skilled work, but show up every day and do as they are told? My taxes should make up for the fact that Walmart doesn't pay them enough to get by? The people with ADHD or depression or dyslexia or dysgraphia that will never be able to "find the necessary paths to achieve'? If they are high functioning enough to stock shelves overnight, should my taxes be paying for their housing? Or should their employer?

Why is "deserve" even in that line of thinking?

 

[Bell206]

What about those who don't want to excel?

Not my problem for two reasons: one, I would not hire such a person, and two, if they decided to change after I hired them, I would fire them for not wanting to excel. Millions of people have overcome obstacles to include "poverty" to excel in life with a some even becoming billionaires. I don't believe we should reward those who are too lazy to excel.

As to individuals who are mentally challenged or have a clinically diagnosed condition, that is a completely different issue and am surprised you combined the two. Unfortunately, some seem to prioritize other social issues than protecting our most vulnerable. And being the co-guardian of a mentally challenged cousin, I can attest to that personally.

 

[SkyChaser]

Lastly, who figures out who deserves what? That's where this really starts to crumble. The "deciders" have huge power, which is a short road to massive corruption. Adam Smith was not a moron.

There is also a lot to be said about what is "enough" and who decides what is "enough".

I am not even 30 yet, so my childhood was not really that long ago in terms of the economy. My dad supported a wife and eight children on a salary that for the last ten years or so has been touted as impossible for a family of four to live on. The house was always well-kept and the roof never leaked, we ate plenty of good, healthy food, wore clothes and shoes without holes, drove in used but reliable vehicles, and had toys, books, and even some vacations.

We never used food stamps or any government assistance programs, but I discovered in my college economics class that my family qualified for over $500/month in food stamps, even after my dad's substantial salary jump that occurred in my early teens. I never felt and still don't feel like my family should have been considered poor when I was growing up just because we all couldn't do sports or take dance or receive cars for our 16th birthdays from our parents.

For what it's worth, I put myself through college working $8-9.50/hour jobs, came out with $14.5k of loans with my BA, and paid off all but $2k of those loans within 3 years of graduating while working for $13/hr or less - while also saving up and paying for my pilot's license. This was in the Midwest, so less expensive, but I still paid room and board to my parents every month (1/3 my monthly wage). I also bought myself two beater cars during this timeframe as well - both of which were reliable but not very pretty.

Even now, @2-Bit Speed and I live quite nicely on what is considered by many to be a "barely making ends meet" salary. We own our own house, own two cars outright, we have two cats and a baby on the way, and don't have to carry any consumer debt to keep the checks from bouncing at the end of the month. I would consider our lifestyle very moderately frugal. I shop sales at the grocery store, but we will pick up BBQ or go out to eat once or twice a month and buy new clothes when we need them. I never have to worry about which bill to pay when because there is always enough money in the account to cover all the bills. I would consider our lifestyle to be solidly middle class.

Somehow designer clothes, a Disney vacation every year, and eating out once or twice a week became the norm for "middle class" families. While I agree that the ever-rising inflation and the decreasing buying power of a dollar are factors in the struggle to maintain a middle class lifestyle, I also think peoples' ideas of what middle class living actually is have tended toward the luxurious side of things for a while now.

 

[geezer]

My career employer had a 2 year probationary time, no appeal for firing without cause.

Not willing to work hard, gone.
Not able to understand the computations, and not following instructions on how things must be done...gone.

Many did not last 6 months, but you had to be sent to the shop for replacement by at least 2 men, often 3. No single bad start kicked you out.

At 2 years, join the union, you were the right employee for the job.

Many would be a good fit for a less demanding activity.

Starting pay, you needed to be living at home, have a roommate, or a working wife.
First promotion, enough money to live alone.
Second promotion, marry, and have children, you have a very demanding but well paid career started.

After that second promotion, wife and I bought a 3 bedroom house in a blue collar community, and soon had our first child on the way.

 

[Hang 4]

If they are high functioning enough to stock shelves overnight, should my taxes be paying for their housing? Or should their employer?

One last point. You realize "you" are paying in both of those scenarios. If it's the Gov't paying, then it's through taxes. If it's the employer, then you are paying through higher prices, either directly (like the grocer example @JOhnH gave) or indirectly through increased supply chain costs if it's upstream. The real question is what's the best way to both pay enough and have reasonable cost of living. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't solve anything permanently.

 

[Half Fast]

My career employer had a 2 year probationary time, no appeal for firing without cause.

Not willing to work hard, gone.
Not able to understand the computations, and not following instructions on how things must be done...gone.

Many did not last 6 months, but you had to be sent to the shop for replacement by at least 2 men, often 3. No single bad start kicked you out.

At 2 years, join the union, you were the right employee for the job.

Many would be a good fit for a less demanding activity.

Starting pay, you needed to be living at home, have a roommate, or a working wife.
First promotion, enough money to live alone.
Second promotion, marry, and have children, you have a very demanding but well paid career started.

After that second promotion, wife and I bought a 3 bedroom house in a blue collar community, and soon had our first child on the way.

How many promotions before you could take up flying?

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I have mixed feelings on the matter.

There's no question to me when you're talking about MegaCorp®, which mints billions of dollars in dividends, buy-backs and executive comp packages measured in 8,9,10+ figures -- that they can and should take care of their fulltime workers so they're not welfare recipients.

But we do need to balance that with some reasonable expectation of a "starter job," with the recognition that it's not intended to be a long term career. It's something where you can prove yourself and either move up (promoted) or move out (quit/fired).

When I was a teenager in the early 2000s I worked at 3 movie theatres making nearly minimum wage (they are not high margin MegaCorps®). To put numbers on it, I felt positively rich when I went from 6.5$ as a concessionist/box office to 9$ an hour as a projectionist (a bit more responsibility and skill req'd). If I was running a household I would have been destitute. But as a teenager they were fantastic starter jobs that taught me about punctuality, customer service and basic business skills like reconciling cash drawers and taking inventory. If I wanted to make more than $9 an hour I had to become management, which was an available (albeit unattractive) pathway.

In a lot of jobs there is some onus on the employee to grow. Not necessarily excel, but grow into roles with more responsibility where increased pay makes economic sense for the employer, and which offer a viable financial pathway to the worker. You don't have to be a company man who wakes up and ****es excellence for the firm every morning, but you also can't just languish in a super low value entry level, low skill role as your long term contribution. There's just no getting around the fact that you don't provide enough value to your employer. In my case, there's no way the employers could have paid me tens of thousands of dollars a year more (and all the other employees) to fill popcorn buckets and sweep floors. If you want that -- then you either have a fully automated movie theatre where personnel cost is low and the jobs don't exist, or one where tickets cost $40 a person and popcorn is $40 so you can pay your pimply faced employees enough money to run a household.

Deciding which way to go is not easy, both are fraught with inevitable unintended and undesirable consequences.

 

[172andyou]

One last point. You realize "you" are paying in both of those scenarios. If it's the Gov't paying, then it's through taxes.

Fair point. But as a capitalist I prefer that the businesses pay directly because that's how capitalism functions better. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I admit this is an axiom I hold and not something everyone will agree with.

I would also be fine with UBI as the base instead of an earned wage having a base. I guess what I find most offensive is this blend of capitalism and socialism that has allowed folks like the Waltons to become among the richest people on earth while I pay for their employee housing and food.

 

[geezer]

Half fast, with 2 kids and a non working wife, third promotion moved me into my PPL.

That made a trip to Missouri 2 days quicker than driving or half the cost of airliner.
Gotta save time or money somehow.

Joking aside, flying has been a net saving for our travel, even including the IFR and Com training.

 

[geezer]

I agree that the Walton's are not hiring job entry employees, they are full time career family jobs, and the pay should be adequate.

 

[172andyou]

But we do need to balance that with some reasonable expectation of a "starter job," with the recognition that it's not intended to be a long term career. It's something where you can prove yourself and either move up (promoted) or move out (quit/fired).

I agree with most of what you said, so to pick on this concept that keeps popping up on this thread. All y'all need to do some homework. Specifically, even if you don't eat fast food, poke your head in a McDonald's, Burger King, BoJangles, Whataburger or whatever fast food is in your region and note how many people flipping burgers are not 16 year olds doing a first job, but 20 or 30, sometimes 40 year olds that are trying to survive. And there are plenty of 60 and 70 year old people doing those jobs also because they can't afford to retire. I've lived in big cities and I've lived in much smaller ones. This has been universally true. These places are staffed by adults with maybe a few kids on nights or weekends. But the vast majority of the labor is provided by people who aren't teenagers, in large part because teenagers have conflicts (notably, school. but others also).

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I agree with most of what you said, so to pick on this concept that keeps popping up on this thread. All y'all need to do some homework. Specifically, even if you don't eat fast food, poke your head in a McDonald's, Burger King, BoJangles, Whataburger or whatever fast food is in your region and note how many people flipping burgers are not 16 year olds doing a first job, but 20 or 30, sometimes 40 year olds that are trying to survive. And there are plenty of 60 and 70 year old people doing those jobs also because they can't afford to retire. I've lived in big cities and I've lived in much smaller ones. This has been universally true. These places are staffed by adults with maybe a few kids on nights or weekends. But the vast majority of the labor is provided by people who aren't teenagers, in large part because teenagers have conflicts (notably, school. but others also).

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly that they're not all pimply faced kids anymore. That fact has not gone unnoticed

My local food joints are almost exclusively staffed by adults (usually immigrants), many older than me. And every time I go I notice Lowes/Ace/Home Depot disproportionately employs senior citizens; some probably do it for fun and to get out of the house, but I'm sure many need the check. They're not doing it as an after school gig, it's their job. I recognize their situation and respect it.

For those people I would love if the job were able to pay them enough where they didn't worry about financial survival after doing an honest day of work.

But, I need to caution that just because there is a lack of opportunity elsewhere, which is driving them to take these jobs -- doesn't mean that there suddenly is a bunch of money in the roles they're now taking. The burger flipping industry hasn't changed in half a century.

What changed is the decimation of decent middle class jobs. What has changed is the opportunity set and the cost of living, which is driving people to take those jobs.

But that doesn't mean we can look at historically low margin industries and tell employers: "hey, now that adults are relying on you as their sole means of income to run a household, you need to make more money to pay them". That money is either coming from inflation (boosting the price of services, which will decline demand) or it's coming from cutting expenses (which has a limit). In short, you can't bleed a stone.

The real solution is to get some better middle class jobs back which provide enough value to pay people more, not try the impossible and turn lower income jobs into the new middle class job. However, this opens up a whole new line of other questions about global competition and protectionism, because some of those jobs can't come back if you want to be competitive on the world stage... A whole other can of worms.

 

[Hang 4]

The real solution is to get some better middle class jobs back which provide enough value to pay people more, not try the impossible and turn lower income jobs into the new middle class job.

Yes, and get training for some jobs that are still in high demand. Plumbing, welding etc. are going begging for people and prices/wages are way up in those type of jobs. Not an instant solution, but we lost our way with the fixation on everyone has to go to college. How about earning ~ $100k for the first four years after high school vs spending that same $100k in those same 4 years.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

but we lost our way with the fixation on everyone has to go to college. How about earning ~ $100k for the first four years after high school vs spending that same $100k in those same 4 years.

And to pile onto that -- we also lost our way by telling everyone not just that they should go to college, but that they should get a degree in whatever they liked. Following whatever their "passion" is.
We have incurred a massive amount of student loans as a country minting degrees for people who left college with essentially zero useable skills -- and a resume that has zero differentiation from someone who just sat on their ass for 4 years doing nothing. Not a good ROI for the student or the country as a whole.

 

[Half Fast]

Following whatever their "passion" is.

Well, I tried following my passion during college, but she got a restraining order.

and a resume that has zero differentiation from someone who just sat on their ass for 4 years doing nothing.

It's often worse than that, because if the folks who didn't go to college at least got even a marginal job, even one that doesn't pay a "liveable wage," they're way ahead of the grad with a degree in ancient Mayan architecture who think he somehow deserves a 6-figure job.

 

[Half Fast]

There is also a lot to be said about what is "enough" and who decides what is "enough".

I am not even 30 yet, so my childhood was not really that long ago in terms of the economy. My dad supported a wife and eight children on a salary that for the last ten years or so has been touted as impossible for a family of four to live on. The house was always well-kept and the roof never leaked, we ate plenty of good, healthy food, wore clothes and shoes without holes, drove in used but reliable vehicles, and had toys, books, and even some vacations.

We never used food stamps or any government assistance programs, but I discovered in my college economics class that my family qualified for over $500/month in food stamps, even after my dad's substantial salary jump that occurred in my early teens. I never felt and still don't feel like my family should have been considered poor when I was growing up just because we all couldn't do sports or take dance or receive cars for our 16th birthdays from our parents.

For what it's worth, I put myself through college working $8-9.50/hour jobs, came out with $14.5k of loans with my BA, and paid off all but $2k of those loans within 3 years of graduating while working for $13/hr or less - while also saving up and paying for my pilot's license. This was in the Midwest, so less expensive, but I still paid room and board to my parents every month (1/3 my monthly wage). I also bought myself two beater cars during this timeframe as well - both of which were reliable but not very pretty.

Even now, @2-Bit Speed and I live quite nicely on what is considered by many to be a "barely making ends meet" salary. We own our own house, own two cars outright, we have two cats and a baby on the way, and don't have to carry any consumer debt to keep the checks from bouncing at the end of the month. I would consider our lifestyle very moderately frugal. I shop sales at the grocery store, but we will pick up BBQ or go out to eat once or twice a month and buy new clothes when we need them. I never have to worry about which bill to pay when because there is always enough money in the account to cover all the bills. I would consider our lifestyle to be solidly middle class.

Somehow designer clothes, a Disney vacation every year, and eating out once or twice a week became the norm for "middle class" families. While I agree that the ever-rising inflation and the decreasing buying power of a dollar are factors in the struggle to maintain a middle class lifestyle, I also think peoples' ideas of what middle class living actually is have tended toward the luxurious side of things for a while now.

Have I mentioned lately how glad I am to have you in the family?

You and @2-Bit Speed have done great and I'm proud of both of you. Stay the course.

 

[Half Fast]

...some probably do it for fun and to get out of the house, but I'm sure many need the check. They're not doing it as an after school gig, it's their job. I recognize their situation and respect it.

For some it may be a side hustle. My dad worked two jobs for much of my childhood. This sort of effort is nothing new. People have often had a second job, or worked lots of OT at their primary job.

 

[Bell206]

What I find interesting with these types of discussions is the assumption there are external limitations that prevent people from exceling, or growing, in their respective career(s). When in actuality it boils down to how much risk or sacrifice one is willing to make to achieve their goal(s).

 

[pfarber]

Its HILARIOUS to see the bias in these posts. People from the richest country that ever existed are complaining about people who don't have money and how OTHER people should give them more. TThe Gov't spent TRILLIONS on the war on poverty, yet even after spending 50-60% of the US budget on 'the poor' nothing has has changed.... but hey, the barista still needs to make a 'living wage'.

I suggest everyone go on a trip to another country (second or third world) and see how 'fair' life is. In China, the first thing you do when you go to the hospital is PAY. No money? Then security walks you out. Socialism/communism. The social safety net in many countries is FAMILY. The socialists in the US want us all to 'get along' yet we are also the same culture that puts our INDIVIDUALISM above all else. Look at Japan, or Holland or Norway, most middle eastern countries ... there is not a lot of diversity (ie most people agree on social issues) in those countries that kind of social hemodigny can never exist in the USA (can't say much more without getting another TOS violation).

Being poor in the USA (sinlge person income $15,000) still puts you in the top 22% compared to the rest of the world.

 

[JOhnH]

That's fine. If you would prefer to do the litter box cleaning yourself, or have your administrative staff do it, then go ahead. I will point out that you'll be paying those staff members more than you would be paying the kid making a survivable wage, but it's an option I suppose.

That's absolutely ridiculous and assumes facts not in evidence. If I did not hire those school kids I would have hired full time kennel help at the same wage. This would have given more stable staffing and would have required less supervision and training. I hired them because they were excited about the opportunities.

I would have to reread the thread, but I think you are the only one calling a wage sufficient to raise a family of four the minimum survivable wage.

It may not have been said in this thread but it is a common position among people arguing for a minimum "living wage"

 

[Crashnburn]

I agree that taxpayers should not be subsidizing companies full time employees, especially when companies refuse to pay them enough to be independent while writing out dividend checks to shareholders or doing share buybacks. IMHO, that's totally gross. For a long period of time the biggest recipient of that was Walmart (may still be). I think it was Minnesota that finally quantified the amount of money they were subsidizing Walmart employees via public benefits and it was a staggering multibillion dollar sum per annum. That's pretty repulsive when the Walmart heirs and heiress stockholders are some of the biggest dynastic wealth centers in the world.

But I'll also say that is it's impossible to have an intellectually honest conversation on the topic unless there is a definition for what "survival wages" means. That definition is far from clear.

I say that as someone currently supporting corporate welfare by writing a check to my veteran brother every month to make up for his financial shortfall from his employer who pays (what I consider to be) slave wages. He's living a ridiculously spartan lifestyle with 0$ to spare. He's gone over 5 years without a vacation outside his state, and when he takes those vacations he sleeps in his car. His only furniture is a mattress, a recliner and a card table/chair. Prior to financial assistance the man couldn't even afford to buy a garbage can for his house. Just eats ramen, boxed mac and cheese and whatever is on sale at the discount grocery store. His big luxuries are going to a boutique music coffee shop on Saturday and Sunday and spending five whole dollars for a mocha where he plays their guitars for a couple hours; that's his grand entertainment budget. That's about as barebones a living as you can get IMHO, but he is surviving.

My point in mentioning this, and the only thing I'll say in defense of his very crappy, has absolutely zero future employer (who sometimes I wish would just collapse) is this: my brother chose the job. And he chose to stay in the job despite it being a 0 profit industry. He knows he could make more money working at Costco or an Amazon warehouse stacking boxes, delivering pizzas for Papa Johns, driving for Uber, but he'd rather work in a dying field that aligns with his college major, and thus he commands a nauseatingly low wage (in a higher cost of living area -- pacific northwest). And his employer, which is publicly traded, is undeniably in the midst of a long term, slow motion financial trainwreck -- which is par for the course for his industry. There's no question that increasing the hourly rate he gets from the employer means the job goes away and they make do with less people, they don't have a choice there.

If he insists on staying in his industry, I'm not sure unemployment is a better outcome for him than a demoralizing, painfully low wage.
To me, the right answer is for him (and others) to get different jobs -- no matter how unpalatable they may be. But I also believe that when an employer is capable of paying a survival (or survival++) wage, they should absolutely do so out of respect for their employees.

As long as you subsidize him, don’t expect him to be motivated enough to better himself.

 

[172andyou]

As long as you subsidize him, don’t expect him to be motivated enough to better himself.

Exactly. It's time the Walmart family grew up and stood on their own two feet without the tax payer subsidizing them.

 

[JOhnH]

Exactly. It's time the Walmart family grew up and stood on their own two feet without the tax payer subsidizing them.

That would result in Walmart firing all those marginal employees that don't contribute to a profitable corporation, thus increasing the unemployment rolls and then fully subsidizing those people with your tax dollars that you think you are helping.

 

[172andyou]

That would result in Walmart firing all those marginal employees that don't contribute to a profitable corporation, thus increasing the unemployment rolls and then fully subsidizing those people with your tax dollars that you think you are helping.

No, it wouldn't. The work would still need to be done. It won't magically disappear simply because you and I stop subsidizing Walmart by paying for their employees housing and food.

 

[Half Fast]

No, it wouldn't. The work would still need to be done. It won't magically disappear simply because you and I stop subsidizing Walmart by paying for their employees housing and food.

Been through a WalMart checkout lately? Did a cashier ring up your purchases or did you go through self-checkout?

 

[JOhnH]

No, it wouldn't. The work would still need to be done. It won't magically disappear simply because you and I stop subsidizing Walmart by paying for their employees housing and food.

Yeah, the work would still need to be done, but they would have to pay more to get better employees. Of course, they would then have to raise their prices which leads to inflation which causes those poor guys that lost their job to be in still worse shape and require more government subsidization. And those new guys they hired all of a sudden have to pay more for everything thus requiring they get yet another wage increase.

Where does it stop?

In my early years of business ownership I bought into the theory that if you pay your people more they will be happier and work harder. So I gave everyone a mid-year raise. But instead of working harder, many of them just called in sick more often because they had all the money they needed for their chosen life style.

 

[Half Fast]

Yeah, the work would still need to be done, but they would have to pay more to get better employees. Of course, they would then have to raise their prices which leads to inflation which causes those poor guys that lost their job to be in still worse shape and require more government subsidization. And those new guys they hired all of a sudden have to pay more for everything thus requiring they get yet another wage increase.

Where does it stop?

In my early years of business ownership I bought into the theory that if you pay your people more they will be happier and work harder. So I gave everyone a mid-year raise. But instead of working harder, many of them just called in sick more often because they had all the money they needed for their chosen life style.

When the cost of labor goes up enough, employers will find other ways to get the work done, or change processes to eliminate the need for the work altogether, sometimes by shifting the job to the consumer.

 

[Bell206]

I stop subsidizing Walmart by paying for their employees housing and food.

So I guess you don't know much about Walmart. Around half of the employees are part-time and by choice. So is it your stance that Walmart pay a living wage to part-time employees?