4 ms·

> Anything close to real work should pay real wages because otherwise you’re screwing the most desperate at the expense of the more affluent kids who can afford

> Anything close to real work should pay real wages because otherwise you’re screwing the most desperate at the expense of the more affluent kids who can afford to walk away. That isn't how wages work. If someone can do the same job for less, they will and you will not get paid. You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive (the people who build the tractors get more, the guy driving the tractor gets more, the person picking the lettuce gets paid more, the lady trimming and repackaging the lettuce gets more, the truck driver delivering the lettuce gets more, the high schooler throwing the lettuce on your burger gets more...) That "make everything more expensive" is inflation. Inflation hurts the poor the most. The lady making $400k/year doesn't care if ground beef is 10% more expensive.

acdha 5y ago
> That isn't how wages work. If someone can do the same job for less, they will and you will not get paid. Sure, but recognizing that is what happens is important for both not patronizing businesses which give their workers the worst deal allowed by law and support for increasing minimum wages to match inflation. > You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive (the people who build the tractors get more, the guy driving the tractor gets more, the person picking the lettuce gets paid more, the lady trimming and repackaging the lettuce gets more, the truck driver delivering the lettuce gets more, the high schooler throwing the lettuce on your burger gets more...) You're leaving out a key part: prices only go up for the fraction of those costs which are due to wages. For things like fast food, that's not a large component which is why, for example, a McDonald's worker in Denmark has a much better quality of life while the average Big Mac buyer is paying the same or less than their American counterpart: https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index Another big factor to consider is the cost of poverty. The working poor have less ability to participate in the economy so a certain amount of local economic growth never happens, and they're often worse off because they're forced to do things like buy inefficiently because they don't have the reserves to optimize. Paying people at the level minimum wage used to mean would allow a significant number of people to participate in the economy more effectively and we've never regretted growing the pie.
yardie 5y ago
> You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive Considering minimum wage in the US hasn't been raised in 10 years I should be paying 2010 prices.
mschuster91 5y ago
> You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive Alternatively, the owner capitalist class could - gasp - take a cut in their already excessive profits. Shareholder, CEO, director and other executive pay has ballooned over the last decades, whereas worker wages (the ones that actually create the wealth with their labor) have at best stagnated.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Those ballooning wages are securities, not liquidity. You can't pay rent or buy food with options. Securities are speculative, no minimum wage worker wants a gamble on if they get paid 5 years in the future. Please keep the theatrics to a minimum. The goal is to have meaningful discussion, not attack your peers.
  - stainforth 5y ago
    Divert the securities to the front line labor then instead of the upper few.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      Do the front line labor want securities instead of cash? You'd end up having to do something like a co-op model. However, if you want employees to earn their payout even if they leave before that five year payout then they couldn't sell back co-op ownership. That means the co-op ownership continually gets diluted, or you run out of cap table to be able to hire more. This scheme also means the first, eg fry cook, would make more money from the securities payout than the 3rd or 4th fry cook, even if the later fry cook is better/more dedicated/etc. Also this means co-op voting for securities actions. The co-op can liquidate too early or too late which can hurt individual payout.
      - cxr 5y ago
        > Do the front line labor want securities instead of cash? I didn't see anyone say "instead of".

acdha 5y ago

> That isn't how wages work. If someone can do the same job for less, they will and you will not get paid. Sure, but recognizing that is what happens is important for both not patronizing businesses which give their workers the worst deal allowed by law and support for increasing minimum wages to match inflation. > You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive (the people who build the tractors get more, the guy driving the tractor gets more, the person picking the lettuce gets paid more, the lady trimming and repackaging the lettuce gets more, the truck driver delivering the lettuce gets more, the high schooler throwing the lettuce on your burger gets more...) You're leaving out a key part: prices only go up for the fraction of those costs which are due to wages. For things like fast food, that's not a large component which is why, for example, a McDonald's worker in Denmark has a much better quality of life while the average Big Mac buyer is paying the same or less than their American counterpart: https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index https://www.economist.com/big-mac-index Another big factor to consider is the cost of poverty. The working poor have less ability to participate in the economy so a certain amount of local economic growth never happens, and they're often worse off because they're forced to do things like buy inefficiently because they don't have the reserves to optimize. Paying people at the level minimum wage used to mean would allow a significant number of people to participate in the economy more effectively and we've never regretted growing the pie.

yardie 5y ago

> You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive Considering minimum wage in the US hasn't been raised in 10 years I should be paying 2010 prices.

mschuster91 5y ago

> You can raise the minimum but then you make everything more expensive Alternatively, the owner capitalist class could - gasp - take a cut in their already excessive profits. Shareholder, CEO, director and other executive pay has ballooned over the last decades, whereas worker wages (the ones that actually create the wealth with their labor) have at best stagnated.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Those ballooning wages are securities, not liquidity. You can't pay rent or buy food with options. Securities are speculative, no minimum wage worker wants a gamble on if they get paid 5 years in the future. Please keep the theatrics to a minimum. The goal is to have meaningful discussion, not attack your peers.
- stainforth 5y ago
  Divert the securities to the front line labor then instead of the upper few.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Do the front line labor want securities instead of cash? You'd end up having to do something like a co-op model. However, if you want employees to earn their payout even if they leave before that five year payout then they couldn't sell back co-op ownership. That means the co-op ownership continually gets diluted, or you run out of cap table to be able to hire more. This scheme also means the first, eg fry cook, would make more money from the securities payout than the 3rd or 4th fry cook, even if the later fry cook is better/more dedicated/etc. Also this means co-op voting for securities actions. The co-op can liquidate too early or too late which can hurt individual payout.
    - cxr 5y ago
      > Do the front line labor want securities instead of cash? I didn't see anyone say "instead of".