4 ms·

> 1) There is a frame that wages are decided by the government. There is a lot of evidence that this isn't how wages work - that isn't how the price of most oth

> 1) There is a frame that wages are decided by the government. There is a lot of evidence that this isn't how wages work - that isn't how the price of most other things a business expenses is decided. That's exactly what minimum wage IS. And the other symbol that companies that pay minimum wage are also saying is "If I could pay you less, I would" > 2) There is a frame that a "living wage" is some magic number. I remember "fight for $15" being a slogan somewhere. Which, given how long the fight takes, has probably become a Fight for $10 after inflation by now. "Fight for 15$" has been going on since 2008. It really now should be "Fight for $25" But back when FDR did it, the minimum wage WAS the living wage. But it definitely should be pegged to a random subset of a wide variety of goods, or accept that not everyone in the country needs to work... But that second assertion likely wont happen in my lifetime in the USA. > The best thing that cooks, waiters and bartenders could have happen is some political leadership that stops picking stupid battles and takes a bit of time to articulate what the actual problems are and put some effort towards fixing them. Like, say, Unions? Again, without real teeth in the union laws with NLRB, corporations will just do illegal activities and pay the token fines, and get their way. You may not be able to fire a unionizer, but you can shut the store down for 3 months, lay everyone off, and rehire, flushing the union out. And completely legal. And the fines are laughable, like "you must rehire". > Greater government control over wages and prices is not going to help low status workers people. There is a very real chance that the more of those battles they win, the worse the outcome will be. Market inefficiencies usually make life worse for people with no money. From a terrible libertarian take, that isn't indicative in most of the world (or even European sensibilities), this is laughably wrong. I've seen "trickle down". The only trickle I got was being peed on. And "market inefficiencies" don't care for things like, say, people, human suffering, climate change, or any of those externalities. Those are just inconvenient things to avoid to the "market".

AlexandrB 4y ago
> "Fight for 15$" has been going on since 2008. It really now should be "Fight for $25" Exactly. This is also what pisses me off regarding reporting on strikes and wage negotiations. If you're going to report on these accurately, any raise less than the rate of inflation should be called a pay cut. The fact that some workers have to strike to get even a 2% pay increase in an 8% inflation environment is nuts.
- tarotuser 4y ago
  Yep. I was also one of those employees that was "given" a 2% raise. I made a point to say, "So, that's a 6% pay cut when comparing to inflation?" The call got real quiet, and then moved on to other topics. Lest to say, with the pervasive "chilling" of the job market, I will stay put for a time... But I definitely did update my resume. New hire budgets are always better monied than retention budgets.
roenxi 4y ago
> ...companies that pay minimum wage are also saying is "If I could pay you less, I would"... There is actually an important insight there that is being missed. Companies 'think' this about all employees at all times. My employer would, if given the opportunity, choose to pay me less. And all my co-workers. None of us are paid anything near as low as the minimum wage. The minimum wage doesn't force companies to pay more, it forces them to fire all the employees who are less productive, until the only ones left are those worth paying the wages they receive.

AlexandrB 4y ago

> "Fight for 15$" has been going on since 2008. It really now should be "Fight for $25" Exactly. This is also what pisses me off regarding reporting on strikes and wage negotiations. If you're going to report on these accurately, any raise less than the rate of inflation should be called a pay cut. The fact that some workers have to strike to get even a 2% pay increase in an 8% inflation environment is nuts.

tarotuser 4y ago
Yep. I was also one of those employees that was "given" a 2% raise. I made a point to say, "So, that's a 6% pay cut when comparing to inflation?" The call got real quiet, and then moved on to other topics. Lest to say, with the pervasive "chilling" of the job market, I will stay put for a time... But I definitely did update my resume. New hire budgets are always better monied than retention budgets.

roenxi 4y ago

> ...companies that pay minimum wage are also saying is "If I could pay you less, I would"... There is actually an important insight there that is being missed. Companies 'think' this about all employees at all times. My employer would, if given the opportunity, choose to pay me less. And all my co-workers. None of us are paid anything near as low as the minimum wage. The minimum wage doesn't force companies to pay more, it forces them to fire all the employees who are less productive, until the only ones left are those worth paying the wages they receive.