5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      Price controls absolutely affect the labor market. Whether or not a market has perfect demand and supply curves does not render them immune to price controls. It's why many white dominated communities passed minimum wages long ago, to keep blacks out of the workforce and from competing with white labor. They knew the implications of minimum wages, and wanted that result. In fact, prior to the federal minimum wage passing in the 1930s, blacks had a higher employment rate than whites. After the law passed, the employment level among african americans was destroyed. It still hasn't recovered. Minimum wage laws in the US are literally a very clear example of codified systemic racism and it's shocking how many people relentlessly support them. If we want low skill workers to take home more pay, subsidize their wages.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I am not sure what the government can do. Stop treating employment as a vassal-servant relationship in which the employer is a subordinate lord underneath the government to which responsibility for the basic minimal support of citizens can be transferred. If there a minimum level of income, healthcare, etc., a person should have, don't tie getting it to full-time employment and demand that employers provide it, provide it directly and pay for it out of taxes. Mandate job-protected leave if there are good reasons, sure, but if it 8snto be paid leave, provide pay for qualified leave at public expense (maybe actuarially paid by employees out of payroll taxes, but probably better out of general progressive taxes which should hit capital income the same as other income; otherwise, the tax itself makes production methods that are less labor-intensive more attractive.)

by l72 6y ago

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.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Price controls absolutely affect the labor market. Whether or not a market has perfect demand and supply curves does not render them immune to price controls. It's why many white dominated communities passed minimum wages long ago, to keep blacks out of the workforce and from competing with white labor. They knew the implications of minimum wages, and wanted that result. In fact, prior to the federal minimum wage passing in the 1930s, blacks had a higher employment rate than whites. After the law passed, the employment level among african americans was destroyed. It still hasn't recovered. Minimum wage laws in the US are literally a very clear example of codified systemic racism and it's shocking how many people relentlessly support them. If we want low skill workers to take home more pay, subsidize their wages.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I am not sure what the government can do. Stop treating employment as a vassal-servant relationship in which the employer is a subordinate lord underneath the government to which responsibility for the basic minimal support of citizens can be transferred. If there a minimum level of income, healthcare, etc., a person should have, don't tie getting it to full-time employment and demand that employers provide it, provide it directly and pay for it out of taxes. Mandate job-protected leave if there are good reasons, sure, but if it 8snto be paid leave, provide pay for qualified leave at public expense (maybe actuarially paid by employees out of payroll taxes, but probably better out of general progressive taxes which should hit capital income the same as other income; otherwise, the tax itself makes production methods that are less labor-intensive more attractive.)