Min Wage: Where did 15/hr come from?

[radcen]

Answer: $15 was picked because it was slightly less unreasonable than $20.

I heard this on the internet today but I cant remember where.

I just have this feeling that some group of people somewhere is sitting around and saying, "I can't believe they actually bought into it."

 

[Absentglare]

Ugh that thing is horrifically done.
They don't add in transfer payments from negative taxes and make assumptions about individual family needs.

It also doesn't address employment where one has company sponsored insurance and less than the "living wage."

I'm pretty sure they were trying to suggest how much one would need to survive without government assistance (NIT transfers) or employee provided health insurance (mandated by Obamacare in some circumstances).

I can't defend the whole study, but the challenge was to address "why $15/hr?" And the response i was trying to provide was that it's an exercise in a minimum needed to eliminate the need for other government assistance in order to sustain one individual.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I'm pretty sure they were trying to suggest how much one would need to survive without government assistance (NIT transfers) or employee provided health insurance (mandated by Obamacare in some circumstances).

I can't defend the whole study, but the challenge was to address "why $15/hr?" And the response i was trying to provide was that it's an exercise in a minimum needed to eliminate the need for other government assistance in order to sustain one individual.

Without those two is kinda fantasy land stuff though.
People are going to have it.

If you wanted to implement a plan that repealed that and brought the minimum wage up, that's one thing.
That's not what's being done though.

 

[faithful_servant]

But with 40% of the jobs below $15 it is impossible for many to find a "living wage job". It's not just teenagers looking for a few extra bucks. Perhaps too many jobs are undervalued by years of high unemployment and and a job market that favors employers? Some prodding would not hurt one bit.

Raising the MW doesn't help that at all. ALl it does is buy votes. THAT'S IT!! Nothing more. It doesn't help The People, since all it does is increase the Cost of Living, offsetting the gains of the MW increase. Raising the MW doesn't happen in a vacuum, it has an effect on prices and that means that people everywhere will be paying more for everything.
My employer employs over 1.000 people and a lot of them make less than $15/hr and raise a family on that and I live in an area that has a pretty high COL, so when I hear this garbage about a $15 MW being what's needed to raise a family, I know it's crap. Raising the MW here will mean that almost every door, window, moulding, craft board, etc, you buy will cost more. One of our customer makes wall panels for cold rooms, those will all get more expensive, so every gracoery store that gets built just got more expensive to build. ALL of those costs get passed on to the consumer and that means that EVERYONE'S COL goes up. Now multiply this across a massive number of industries, such as just about every agricultural product there is. People on fixed incomes will see their COL increase even more as a result. But NONE of this seems to sink in to the pro-MW crowd because you all think that increasing the MW doesn't have any long term downstream effect. You're asking grandma and grandpa to give up one lunch a week so that Johnny can have a new XBox (Like that?? It's the kind of hyper-emotional crap that the pro-MW group like to use).

 

[ludin]

No, it's not hard. Someone doesn't need to understand the mathematics behind the big bang or do magic tricks to earn a living wage. All they should have to do is work hard.

maybe in myopic dream world, but that is not how the real world functions. if you want more money then you have to have the skills to demand more money
that is why the line cook doesn't make as much as the head chef, or why the help desk guy doesn't make as much as the IT admin.

what CA just did was devalue tens of thousands of jobs. they basically said the line cook as the same skills as a sous chef.

Don't engage in class warfare against the working class, it's despicable. Working class folks are some of the best people i've ever met. There's no shame in a humble life.

the only people that engage in class warfare are liberals. yes it is pretty despicable in what they do.
and the appeal to emotion.

 

[ludin]

That a machine or desperate foreigner can't do.

Y'all keep talking like there are jobs just sitting empty for millions of people if they would just get an advanced degree already.

There aren't. Those days are gone and not coming back.

Stop pretending they are.

Job Openings and Labor Turnover Summary

there are currently 5.5 million job openings out there.
so what is your excuse now?

most of them are good paying jobs but also require higher levels of education.

 

[ludin]

the law requires it is actually a pretty easy justification.

then why not make it 50 an hour then or 100.

no the law isn't justified. the law is absurd and CA will soon see the cost of this.
less jobs more people fired high prices on everything else.

 

[Absentglare]

maybe in myopic dream world, but that is not how the real world functions. if you want more money then you have to have the skills to demand more money
that is why the line cook doesn't make as much as the head chef, or why the help desk guy doesn't make as much as the IT admin.

what CA just did was devalue tens of thousands of jobs. they basically said the line cook as the same skills as a sous chef.



the only people that engage in class warfare are liberals. yes it is pretty despicable in what they do.
and the appeal to emotion.

You don't seem to understand how it works, at all.

If a cook works hard, and then demonstrates ambition and talent, they should be able to become head chef. That's how the world is supposed to work, not this "whoever paid the most on their education gets to be head chef" bull****.

 

[ludin]

You don't seem to understand how it works, at all.

If a cook works hard, and then demonstrates ambition and talent, they should be able to become head chef. That's how the world is supposed to work, not this "whoever paid the most on their education gets to be head chef" bull****.

given time they can. but CA just skipped all that and said the line cook is head chef.
however to be head chef unless they are just that good they will need additional skills and additional training.

no you are comparing your myopic dream world again.

just like the helpdesk guy will need additional knowledge and skills to be an IT admin.
once they have those skills they can then demand more money.

you are the last person that should be telling anyone what they do or do not know.

 

[Mason66]

You don't seem to understand how it works, at all.

If a cook works hard, and then demonstrates ambition and talent, they should be able to become head chef. That's how the world is supposed to work, not this "whoever paid the most on their education gets to be head chef" bull****.

Maybe that is true, however they should not be making Head Chef money while they are working hard and demonstrating ambition and talent, so what do you suggest for somebody just entering a job?

 

[Absentglare]

given time they can. but CA just skipped all that and said the line cook is head chef.
however to be head chef unless they are just that good they will need additional skills and additional training.

no you are comparing your myopic dream world again.

just like the helpdesk guy will need additional knowledge and skills to be an IT admin.
once they have those skills they can then demand more money.

No, they're still just a cook, they just might have to be better paid.

It's not the end of the world, in fact, it's better for most Americans to have a higher minimum wage.

 

[Absentglare]

Maybe that is true, however they should not be making Head Chef money while they are working hard and demonstrating ambition and talent, so what do you suggest for somebody just entering a job?

They still have to be able to house themselves and eat, their employer should compensate them sufficiently to meet these requirements. The government shouldn't subsidize low wages so that poorly run businesses can profit.

 

[ludin]

No, they're still just a cook, they just might have to be better paid.

then you honestly don't know the difference between a head chef and a line cook. there is way more to it than just they are just a cook.
the amount of responsibility that a head chef has vs a line cook is huge.

It's not the end of the world, in fact, it's better for most Americans to have a higher minimum wage.

same thing I have heard the last 3 or 4 times they have raised minimum wage. guess what those people still
didn't get rich.

at 15 an hour you just made the line cook job require formal cooking training.
it is the only way that a owner can justify paying it.

you have priced other people out of a job and those that have no job experience at all?
pretty much out of luck.

congrats you just hurt the people you wanted to help.

 

[ludin]

They still have to be able to house themselves and eat, their employer should compensate them sufficiently to meet these requirements. The government shouldn't subsidize low wages so that poorly run businesses can profit.

now the government will fully subsidize them when they are fired or can't find a job.

no their employer is not responsible for them housing themselves or feeding themselves.
you are 100% wrong.

 

[Absentglare]

then you honestly don't know the difference between a head chef and a line cook. there is way more to it than just they are just a cook.
the amount of responsibility that a head chef has vs a line cook is huge.



same thing I have heard the last 3 or 4 times they have raised minimum wage. guess what those people still
didn't get rich.

at 15 an hour you just made the line cook job require formal cooking training.
it is the only way that a owner can justify paying it.

you have priced other people out of a job and those that have no job experience at all?
pretty much out of luck.

congrats you just hurt the people you wanted to help.

I never claimed there was no difference between a cook and a head chef.

They've raised it before therefore we shouldn't raise it again ? It's not indexed to inflation- why not?

Does this sawtooth bull**** help anyone ?

Lol and your logic is terrible. Raising the minimum wage hurts people who were paid under the new minimum because ... They still have to fill the position and no job was lost ...?

now the government will fully subsidize them when they are fired or can't find a job.

no their employer is not responsible for them housing themselves or feeding themselves.
you are 100% wrong.

It could easily be cheaper to fully subsidize the small number of jobs that are lost (which is up for debate as poor people receiving more share of income would result in more sales which would grow businesses which would require hiring more people).

The employer is responsible for lawful compensation. The minimum wage is set by Americans who serve as the employer of employers who seek to hire employees here. They abide by US law if they elect to do business in the US. End of story.

 

[Mithrae]

just like the helpdesk guy will need additional knowledge and skills to be an IT admin.
once they have those skills they can then demand more money.

So what on earth makes you think that a head chef won't demand more pay than a line cook? What makes you think an IT admin won't demand more pay than a help desk guy? I certainly would! If they've got more valuable skills, they'll expect higher remuneration even if the minimum wage increases. They'll probably get it too, because more money in consumers' pockets means more profits for their companies.

at 15 an hour you just made the line cook job require formal cooking training.
it is the only way that a owner can justify paying it.

And I'm sure if you were living in India (or 60 years ago) you'd be insisting that a mere line cook couldn't possibly be worth $7 an hour :lol:

 

[Citizen.Seven]

If you want a living wage, then get a living wage job. Not every job in the country has to be or should be a living wage job. That's the fact that those who think that every job should pay a living wage just don't get.

There's also the issue that this wage is calculated for one person supporting a family of four. Sorry, if you're making minimum wage, you can't afford children or a non-working spouse. Don't have them. That's part of being an adult: it's not about what you want, it's about what you can afford.

 

[Mason66]

They still have to be able to house themselves and eat, their employer should compensate them sufficiently to meet these requirements. The government shouldn't subsidize low wages so that poorly run businesses can profit.

That is not the employers problem. The employer cannot rate the pay based on the individuals expenses.

If the employee is not making enough to cover his nut, then he needs to work another job to cover it.

That is the way it has always been.

 

[Groogrux]

It's nowhere near that simple.

Higher incomes at the bottom means more disposable income which means more goods are bought and sold which means economic growth.

Myself ? I think we should raise it to $9/hr and index it to inflation. States and municipalities can increase their own minimum wages with cost of living if they desire. That won't jeopardize many jobs, if any.

Where are you getting this nonsense? At our last township business association meeting, nearly all small business owners said that if the MW goes up again in PA they'll be cutting their workforce by at least 50%. Many said they would scrap their entire staff and rely solely on family members to run their businesses.

 

[Thrilla]

Min Wage: Where did 15/hr come from?

Was it just made up by fast food workers and everybody latched onto it? Is there some sort of study or rationale behind it?

it's an arbitrary number dreamed up by those making in excessive of 100k a year.

it's " latched onto" by the masses because it's simply more than the current minimum.

 

[notquiteright]

How about not starting a family until you are mature enough to pay for it? 90% of these idiots supporting $15.00 minimum wage never ran a business and all the BS that comes with it.

'cept of course many in the lower pay scale bracket are not young parents, they come from across the age range. I'd opine that 90% of those barfing about increasing the minimum wage have not run a business either.

The angry old guy answer solves nothing as we all subsidize lower income families through public assistance.

What many who decry raising the minimum wage don't seem to know is many big box retail and fast food companies have already raised their starting wage. They find they can't attract good employees for 7.25. They find themselves constantly training new people as the ones who work for 7.25 are not reliable and those who are reliable are always looking for a new ship to jump to.

Walmart has gone from using public assistance as part of their employees income to around 10 bucks an hour here in Lawton Ok. they are finally learning it is bad PR to use welfare as an income multiplier and many good workers turn their nose up at minimum wage and work elsewhere.

It is about time the minimum wage catches up with reality, a few angry old guys aside... eace

 

[Absentglare]

That is not the employers problem. The employer cannot rate the pay based on the individuals expenses.

If the employee is not making enough to cover his nut, then he needs to work another job to cover it.

That is the way it has always been.

The employer doesn't increase pay to cover employee expenses.

The employer must abide by the law and the law can negotiate a minimum legal compensation on behalf of employee.

 

[Absentglare]

Where are you getting this nonsense? At our last township business association meeting, nearly all small business owners said that if the MW goes up again in PA they'll be cutting their workforce by at least 50%. Many said they would scrap their entire staff and rely solely on family members to run their businesses.

Wahh it cuts into profit, if you do this i'll go throw a hissy fit !!

Whoopty doo, they can and should take their business elsewhere if it must exploit deflated labor costs to cut a profit.

 

[Groogrux]

Wahh it cuts into profit, if you do this i'll go throw a hissy fit !!

Whoopty doo, they can and should take their business elsewhere if it must exploit deflated labor costs to cut a profit.

Businesses have a right to take legal steps to protect their profits. My point is that you're wrong that increasing the MW won't effect jobs. Hours get cut so you may be making more an hour but you're getting less hours. So great you're working mess for the same amount of money, but you're not making more money overall. Full time positions get eliminated, as full time employees leave the position becomes part time and job responsibilities get re-organized. Many large corporations will immediately put a hiring freeze into effect.

 

[ludin]

I never claimed there was no difference between a cook and a head chef.

They've raised it before therefore we shouldn't raise it again ? It's not indexed to inflation- why not?

If you look it did nothing to help them either. so repeating the same bad policy as before as if it is going to
make a difference is the definition of insanity.

Does this sawtooth bull**** help anyone ?

Lol and your logic is terrible. Raising the minimum wage hurts people who were paid under the new minimum because ... They still have to fill the position and no job was lost ...?

yes your logic is terrible that that you have any logic to begin with.
Minimum wage is meant as the least amount of pay for the least amount of skill.

no they don't have to fill the position. I can have automatic ordering machines replace at least 4 people right there.
those people lose their jobs. 0 jobs were created.

It could easily be cheaper to fully subsidize the small number of jobs that are lost (which is up for debate as poor people receiving more share of income would result in more sales which would grow businesses which would require hiring more people).

nope large number of jobs lost and higher requirements for getting those jobs.
employers have to justify the expense. if they can't then they will find another way.

The employer is responsible for lawful compensation. The minimum wage is set by Americans who serve as the employer of employers who seek to hire employees here. They abide by US law if they elect to do business in the US. End of story.

lawful compensation is what you and they agree to. the government forcing companies to pay wages beyond the cost of the job is not an agreement or lawful compensation.
minimum wage is the minimum standard of pay for the minimum skilled job.