5 ms·

Having multiple family members and friends that work in retail or the food industry, this is very common among them. From what I can tell, this happens for two

by l72 6y ago

Having multiple family members and friends that work in retail or the food industry, this is very common among them. From what I can tell, this happens for two major reasons: 1. The pay is too low, so a second job is required. If you are making $12/hour (which is pretty good for retail), that is only $25k/year at full time, which is not enough to support yourself and certainly not a family. Raising the minimum wage, providing health insurance, and paid time off could definitely help here. 2. So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for full time work. It seems like most of my family members and friends hover just under 30 hours per week. Even if they were making $15-18/hour, at less than 30 hours per week plus no benefits, this doesn't cut it. So they end up with a second job where they are also part time. And balancing two part time jobs, both with schedules that constantly change, is incredibly difficult and stressful.

missedthecue 6y ago
I would rather work 40 hours without benefits than 29 hours without benefits and then trying to fit in an extra 11-20 at another place every week(also without benefits). What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result.
- l72 6y ago
  I think most people would agree. The federal government had good intentions, but of course, large businesses found a way around it, which just screwed over the employees even more. But even 40 hours at $12/hour with no benefits is not something you can survive on in the long term. It's not like there are very many advancements or raises either. You might be surprised to learn, that the manager at many of these retail stores only earn about $2 more than their floor employees. So that's where you cap out, unless you some how have connections and get into regional or corporate hq. I am not sure what the government can do. It seems like any rules they make, business will find loopholes. In my opinion, retail workers and food industry workers need a union. That is the only way they are ever going to get full time work, benefits, and better pay.
  - Gustomaximus 6y ago
    > I am not sure what the government can do Obviously a bunch of detail but broadly it doesn't seem that hard if govt bases off solutions that work in other countries. For example these 3 things could make a huge change for the positive; 1) Universal or similar health care like rest of Western world so this is not tied to a job. 2) Better minimum wage 3) Casual minimum wage loading at X% premium vs full time minimum wage so there is a business cost to flexible scheduling. I think gig economy is the harder one to deal with going forward. You need some freedom for people to sideline in markets but not have companies abuse this. Maybe something is needed like if X amount of people do more than X hours in a month companies response are responsible to ensure their minimum wage. So a small gig environment can operate, but if.you have thousands of people doing 15+ hours a month the company needs to step up... there'd be lots of cracks in that though.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      What's the practical difference between mandating a minimum wage increase and mandating benefits? They both increase the cost of labor without directly making that labor more productive. It's not surprise that price controls negatively impact the labor market, like it does to other markets. If we want low wage earners to take home more income, it seems more prudent to subsidize their pay through a negative income tax rather than try to fight against mathematics and supply/demand curves
      - hannasanarion 6y ago
        Price controls do not negatively impact the labor market. Employment is an inelastic good, everybody needs it, even if the price sucks, and employers hold all of the bargaining power. Wages naturally sink to zero in an unregulated environment. The United States has the cheapest labor in the developed world, despite being the most productive in the developed world, because it has the lowest minimum wage in the developed world, and it's not pegged to inflation, like in the rest of the developed world, so it's actually a constantly decreasing minimum wage. In the 12 years since the last minimum wage increase, inflation has decreased its value by 21.5%, the equivalent of $5.75 in 2007 dollars, which is, by the way, the longest period of stagnation it's ever seen. Prior to the Reagan administration, Congress raised the minimum wage by 5-10% annually. If that pattern had kept up, the minimum wage would be over $20 today, and if it had been kept close to inflation since 1978 it would be $16 today.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result. What results is...reduced headline unemployment, and reversing the policy would instantly and significantly boost headline unemployment, and result in lots of people losing jobs in a way individually and obviously traceable to the policy change. Sure, there's a good story to tell about how the situation without the rule is better in the long-term steady state, and maybe even in aggregate in the short-term. But it's a more complex and abstract story.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for full time work. Yes, and this is why I think government mandates tied to full time work should be converted one of two ways: 1. Where sensible (mandatory sick leave or other similar things), pro-rate the requirements for sub-full-time work, in some cases with only a fractional reduction rather than the full ratio. 2. Where not sensible (e.g., health care), it should not be an employment benefit but a public benefit. In some cases the employer might be permitted to replace the public benefit with a superior one, with some credit for the displaced public cost.
tjs8rj 6y ago
A major argument against raising the minimum wage is productivity ceilings. Is a retail workers work worth $15/hr? If it isn’t, the employer is losing money by keeping them, and so they are fired. If I remember correctly, the congressional budget office reported that a $15 federal min wage would lift 1 mil people out of poverty - but would also cost 1 mil jobs.

by l72 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago

I would rather work 40 hours without benefits than 29 hours without benefits and then trying to fit in an extra 11-20 at another place every week(also without benefits). What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result.

l72 6y ago
I think most people would agree. The federal government had good intentions, but of course, large businesses found a way around it, which just screwed over the employees even more. But even 40 hours at $12/hour with no benefits is not something you can survive on in the long term. It's not like there are very many advancements or raises either. You might be surprised to learn, that the manager at many of these retail stores only earn about $2 more than their floor employees. So that's where you cap out, unless you some how have connections and get into regional or corporate hq. I am not sure what the government can do. It seems like any rules they make, business will find loopholes. In my opinion, retail workers and food industry workers need a union. That is the only way they are ever going to get full time work, benefits, and better pay.
- Gustomaximus 6y ago
  > I am not sure what the government can do Obviously a bunch of detail but broadly it doesn't seem that hard if govt bases off solutions that work in other countries. For example these 3 things could make a huge change for the positive; 1) Universal or similar health care like rest of Western world so this is not tied to a job. 2) Better minimum wage 3) Casual minimum wage loading at X% premium vs full time minimum wage so there is a business cost to flexible scheduling. I think gig economy is the harder one to deal with going forward. You need some freedom for people to sideline in markets but not have companies abuse this. Maybe something is needed like if X amount of people do more than X hours in a month companies response are responsible to ensure their minimum wage. So a small gig environment can operate, but if.you have thousands of people doing 15+ hours a month the company needs to step up... there'd be lots of cracks in that though.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    What's the practical difference between mandating a minimum wage increase and mandating benefits? They both increase the cost of labor without directly making that labor more productive. It's not surprise that price controls negatively impact the labor market, like it does to other markets. If we want low wage earners to take home more income, it seems more prudent to subsidize their pay through a negative income tax rather than try to fight against mathematics and supply/demand curves
    - hannasanarion 6y ago
      Price controls do not negatively impact the labor market. Employment is an inelastic good, everybody needs it, even if the price sucks, and employers hold all of the bargaining power. Wages naturally sink to zero in an unregulated environment. The United States has the cheapest labor in the developed world, despite being the most productive in the developed world, because it has the lowest minimum wage in the developed world, and it's not pegged to inflation, like in the rest of the developed world, so it's actually a constantly decreasing minimum wage. In the 12 years since the last minimum wage increase, inflation has decreased its value by 21.5%, the equivalent of $5.75 in 2007 dollars, which is, by the way, the longest period of stagnation it's ever seen. Prior to the Reagan administration, Congress raised the minimum wage by 5-10% annually. If that pattern had kept up, the minimum wage would be over $20 today, and if it had been kept close to inflation since 1978 it would be $16 today.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result. What results is...reduced headline unemployment, and reversing the policy would instantly and significantly boost headline unemployment, and result in lots of people losing jobs in a way individually and obviously traceable to the policy change. Sure, there's a good story to tell about how the situation without the rule is better in the long-term steady state, and maybe even in aggregate in the short-term. But it's a more complex and abstract story.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for full time work. Yes, and this is why I think government mandates tied to full time work should be converted one of two ways: 1. Where sensible (mandatory sick leave or other similar things), pro-rate the requirements for sub-full-time work, in some cases with only a fractional reduction rather than the full ratio. 2. Where not sensible (e.g., health care), it should not be an employment benefit but a public benefit. In some cases the employer might be permitted to replace the public benefit with a superior one, with some credit for the displaced public cost.

tjs8rj 6y ago

A major argument against raising the minimum wage is productivity ceilings. Is a retail workers work worth $15/hr? If it isn’t, the employer is losing money by keeping them, and so they are fired. If I remember correctly, the congressional budget office reported that a $15 federal min wage would lift 1 mil people out of poverty - but would also cost 1 mil jobs.