8 ms·

Sounds like those businesses aren't viable, and should fail. In other words, if a business cannot be profitable _and_ pay it's staff a livable wage, then the a

by epalm 4y ago

Sounds like those businesses aren't viable, and should fail. In other words, if a business cannot be profitable _and_ pay it's staff a livable wage, then the answer is to make adjustments so it can do both, or close the business. Paying staff a non-livable wage, while perhaps making/retaining a profit, is still hard on the business (high turnover rate, constantly retraining new people, etc), and is nearly untenable for the staff (required to work multiple jobs, 1 paycheck away from not making rent, etc). As a business owner, I know "close the business" sounds ludicrous to business owners, and isn't even on the table, but this so-called "labor shortage" is going to force things to go one way or the other.

Aerroon 4y ago
The efficiency of human labor in a lot of these industries hasn't increased enough to justify the full cost of the labor. There's next to no efficiency increase you can get out of a truck driver or a waiter. Getting all of these people into industries that do have a better human labor efficiency is going to be hard.
- noelherrick 4y ago
  You make a claim that there's no way to pay them according to their value. But there's several ways I can say that this is not true. First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. Second, the food or the goods being transported can be more or less valuable. A trucker might haul packing peanuts vs. iPhones. Restaurants can be more expensive or have higher margins. Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it.
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    >First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. This is true on an individual level, but I don't believe that there has been much efficiency increase here that has permeated through the industry. There has been no shovel to digger moment that has improved the ability for most waitresses to do their work much more efficiently. I think it's going to happen with self-checkout though (you will still need someone to staff self-checkout). >Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it. But workers are better paid in the US than in almost any other country in the world: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    Spain has an unemployment rate of 15 percent. Its safe to assume that actual rate is higher than official rate. So no, "almost every other developed countries does it" is not true. Also look up part timers in Japan, and the kind of capitalism there.
    - lobocinza 4y ago
      People that haven't looked for work in the prior 4 weeks aren't counted as unemployed even when they are.
nine_k 4y ago
Is there a case for an "unlivable wage" when a family member wants to add to the family budget, even though other family members (a spouse, or parents) provide the bulk of it but not exactly enough? Clamping the lower bound of wages may put many of such people out of an opportunity to make some money. In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? This, of course, works best if the job is not taking 8 hours a day. I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad; actually, my son worked this way for some time, which allowed him to pass a rough spot in job market in 2020-2021.
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  > In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? Yes. Many teenagers of working age are head of household and shouldn’t have their wages undercut by the dependent children of others. > I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad Because it makes life unnecessarily stressful. Transportation costs, typically borne by the worker, increase dramatically. It’s more efficient to work a single job, if possible.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    If you want a 17 year-old lifeguard in San Francisco to be able to afford a mortgage San Francisco, you end up with no pools in San Francisco and unemployed teens.
    - thebooktocome 4y ago
      It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a single 17-year-old making minimum wage could afford to house themselves outside of a family unit.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I believe it. I think zoning and building codes are most of the problem. Allow 200 sqft apartments like you find in NYC and you will see a stark reduction in the working homeless.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by epalm 4y ago

Aerroon 4y ago

The efficiency of human labor in a lot of these industries hasn't increased enough to justify the full cost of the labor. There's next to no efficiency increase you can get out of a truck driver or a waiter. Getting all of these people into industries that do have a better human labor efficiency is going to be hard.

noelherrick 4y ago
You make a claim that there's no way to pay them according to their value. But there's several ways I can say that this is not true. First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. Second, the food or the goods being transported can be more or less valuable. A trucker might haul packing peanuts vs. iPhones. Restaurants can be more expensive or have higher margins. Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it.
- Aerroon 4y ago
  >First, a waitress is often a little bit of a salesperson so yes, she can up her skills to be more valuable. This is true on an individual level, but I don't believe that there has been much efficiency increase here that has permeated through the industry. There has been no shovel to digger moment that has improved the ability for most waitresses to do their work much more efficiently. I think it's going to happen with self-checkout though (you will still need someone to staff self-checkout). >Third, we know it's possible to pay people a living wage because almost every other developed countries does it. But workers are better paid in the US than in almost any other country in the world: https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY https://data.oecd.org/chart/6JwY
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  Spain has an unemployment rate of 15 percent. Its safe to assume that actual rate is higher than official rate. So no, "almost every other developed countries does it" is not true. Also look up part timers in Japan, and the kind of capitalism there.
  - lobocinza 4y ago
    People that haven't looked for work in the prior 4 weeks aren't counted as unemployed even when they are.

nine_k 4y ago

Is there a case for an "unlivable wage" when a family member wants to add to the family budget, even though other family members (a spouse, or parents) provide the bulk of it but not exactly enough? Clamping the lower bound of wages may put many of such people out of an opportunity to make some money. In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? This, of course, works best if the job is not taking 8 hours a day. I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad; actually, my son worked this way for some time, which allowed him to pass a rough spot in job market in 2020-2021.

thebooktocome 4y ago
> In other words, should a summer job for a teenager pay a livable wage? Yes. Many teenagers of working age are head of household and shouldn’t have their wages undercut by the dependent children of others. > I don't see why working multiple jobs, each of which takes a part of the day, should be considered bad Because it makes life unnecessarily stressful. Transportation costs, typically borne by the worker, increase dramatically. It’s more efficient to work a single job, if possible.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  If you want a 17 year-old lifeguard in San Francisco to be able to afford a mortgage San Francisco, you end up with no pools in San Francisco and unemployed teens.
  - thebooktocome 4y ago
    It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a single 17-year-old making minimum wage could afford to house themselves outside of a family unit.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I believe it. I think zoning and building codes are most of the problem. Allow 200 sqft apartments like you find in NYC and you will see a stark reduction in the working homeless.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]