6 ms·

I would still argue that anyone who works a living number of work hours deserves a living wage. Anything less is taking advantage of another person to make the

I would still argue that anyone who works a living number of work hours deserves a living wage. Anything less is taking advantage of another person to make the recipient of that benefit more comfortable.

BenFranklin100 3y ago
That’s noble of you, but the economics don’t work for all types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many entry-level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go away. Among other things, this will increase youth unemployment and negatively impact people with poorer backgrounds who are trying to work their way up to a good career.
- fnimick 3y ago
  Why does it work in other countries then?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Master_Odin 3y ago
    Because other countries are not so filled with temporarily embarrassed millionaires as the US and they need to maintain the status quo in case they ever accidentally stumble back into "their" wealth.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Does what work? The US has one of the highest median wages in the world.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Median wage does not mean living wage. The living wage in other countries is quite a lot lower. Their money goes far further. Just because we have big starting number doesn't mean we can thrive with big starting number.
      - refurb 3y ago
        Please define living wage then.
        t-writescode 3y ago
        Sufficient earnings to be able to afford housing, food, the necessities for modern life including internet and cell service, health care in countries where it’s not part of your taxes, and a standard emergency in your country (in the US, this would be a medical emergency, like a broken bone) as well as some on top for enjoying your life a bit.
        refurb 3y ago
        What kind of housing? Would a 1 room apartment shared with another adult suffice? What kind of food? Is 1MB internet ok? A flip phone? And what kind of healthcare? Cutting edge healthcare or the basics? “Living wage” means nothing without answering those questions?
        t-writescode 3y ago
        housing: * sufficient for a single parent food: * the federal government has established projected costs of food per person healthcare: * I believe that all healthcare should be covered, so that. If not that, then an HSA with enough additional money added to their salary to cover the maximum out-of-pocket expenses Internet: * average internet available in the area with a minimum of "sufficient to live-stream video footage from one's house for as many residents as live in that place", so parent and child can both join Zoom meetings for whatever reason. The tactic you're performing here is called "Sea lioning" and it's a bad-faith tactic; but I'll answer the questions just in case you didn't know what I meant by what I said.
        refurb 3y ago
        housing: sufficient for a single parent A single parent could share a 1 bedroom apartment with another single parent. That's ok? I believe that all healthcare should be covered No country covers all healthcare. The tactic you're performing here is called "Sea lioning" and it's a bad-faith tactic; but I'll answer the questions just in case you didn't know what I meant by what I said. You didn't answer the questions at all. Saying "it needs to be sufficient" is not an answer. And calling it "sealioning" doesn't change that.
- mft_ 3y ago
  That a higher minimum wage causes job losses is a long-held but unproven economic theory, and attempts to study it have suggested it might be wrong. "...that have deepened the amount of data that shows the original theory about the minimum wage causing job losses is likely wrong." [0] [0] https://theconversation.com/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-kill-jobs-economists-have-been-trying-to-answer-this-question-for-a-century-and-finally-starting-to-gather-data-157575 https://theconversation.com/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-ki...
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    You seem to have conflated the minimum wage discussion with the living wage discussion.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Per my argument, anyone working a living amount of time should earn a living wage. Since someone working 2, 20 hour a week jobs is working a living amount of time, they should also be paid a living wage. Since those two jobs won’t know about each other, the exact number of hours should not have an impact on your per hour wage. Therefore the minimum wage should be the living wage.
    - mft_ 3y ago
      No conflation. The living wage is a concept --a wage level required to achieve a certain standard of living-- rather than an instrument. You wrote: "If all jobs must pay a living wage..." - and it therefore follows that if all jobs pay a wage level at least that of a 'living wage', then the living wage becaomes the effective minimum wage paid by all jobs. Therefore evidence regarding the effects of a higher minimum wage are entirely relevant to a discussion of paying everyone at least a (higher) living wage.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  The economics already don't work. For example there are many jobs currently where they struggle to find workers because the pay is so low and no one wants to do it. Rather than raise wages, they're instead hiring children, often illegally and lobbying to get the regulations lessened. Companies will do anything to avoid raising wages so they need to be forced to the table to do so.
  - kazen44 3y ago
    or the people working the jobs need govermental handouts to basically survive. Which actually means the business isn't competitive and can only exist by socializing it's losses. If the goverment needs to provide food stamps for your employees so they don't get into financial trouble, and your bussines cannot or will not provide them with a living wage. The bussiness should simply cease to exist.
    - angmarsbane 3y ago
      OR instead of companies going under b/c the numbers no longer make sense....governing bodies could work to reduce the minimum cost to live, those necessary costs like housing and transit (to work and home). I agree that businesses need to pay enough for people to live, and wages have been falling increasingly short of that which is why labor organizing is rising. Businesses can pay more (which some businesses won't be able to so they'll shutter), or the costs that workers need to pay can go down (more types of businesses can exist).
- autoexec 3y ago
  > That’s noble of you, but the economics don’t work for all types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many entry-level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go away. If a business requires someone to spend 40 hours a week doing something, but cannot afford to pay them a living wage then that business should close. They are a failure and should get out of the way so that a competent business owner can replace them. Worker exploitation should not be keeping failed businesses afloat. Starbucks does not have this problem. They're just exploiting workers to stuff their own pockets and could easily ensure that their employees are all able to afford to live on their wages. There was a time, not very long ago, when a single person could support themselves and a family on their wages. Paying a full time employee so little that they can't even support themselves should be illegal. All this "think of the children" nonsense ignores the fact that most jobs paying minimum wage are not held by children, and that most kids don't need full time hours (and arguably shouldn't work that long anyway since they have school) and anyone, even someone in an entry level position, still absolutely deserves a living wage for their time.
  - sennight 3y ago
    > ...but cannot afford to pay them a living wage then that business should close. There is actually a solution for that not involving burdensome regulation: capitalism. Crap business models get outcompeted. > They're just exploiting workers... Slavery is illegal, so these poor coffee slaves have bigger fish to fry. > There was a time, not very long ago... Before the US offshored all its heavy industry and proudly declared itself a "service based economy". > ...even someone in an entry level position, still absolutely deserves a living wage for their time. lol. There do exist people so useless that their labor doesn't even rate minimum wage. Now the bottom rungs of the ladder are gone for them, and they can't even get on the job training. The military figured this out a long time ago, which is what brought about the creation of IQ tests. Anyone below 80ish couldn't be trusted to do anything without constant direction.
    - chabes 3y ago
      > There is actually a solution for that not involving burdensome regulation: capitalism. Crap business models get outcompeted. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?
- klyrs 3y ago
  Starbucks' revenue in 2022 was $33B. Their profit was $22B. That is an incredibly high margin for retail. These jobs wouldn't evaporate if Starbucks was paying a living wage.
  - DaveExeter 3y ago
    Where did you get those numbers from? Obviously Starbucks has massive margins but I can't imagine that massive!
    - allset_ 3y ago
      Not OP, but it's easy to find these numbers as it's a publicly traded company. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/gro... https://investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/financial-releases/press-release-details/2022/Starbucks-Reports-Q4-and-Full-Year-Fiscal-2022-Results/default.aspx https://investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/financial-rele...
      - OnlyLys 3y ago
        I'm not an accounting professional, but the official Starbucks report says that for fiscal year 2022, their "GAAP Operating Margin" was 14.3%. That seems to contradict the macrotrends.net website, no?
        allset_ 3y ago
        You are correct it seems to be incorrect, apologies. That's what I get for not looking closely (and trusting Google search to promote factual info in the info cards).
        klyrs 3y ago
        No, there isn't a contradiction here. GAAP Operating Margin is smaller than Gross Margin by definition.
- 8note 3y ago
  It's not particularly sensible that the owners should profit in that case?

BenFranklin100 3y ago

That’s noble of you, but the economics don’t work for all types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many entry-level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go away. Among other things, this will increase youth unemployment and negatively impact people with poorer backgrounds who are trying to work their way up to a good career.

fnimick 3y ago
Why does it work in other countries then?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Master_Odin 3y ago
  Because other countries are not so filled with temporarily embarrassed millionaires as the US and they need to maintain the status quo in case they ever accidentally stumble back into "their" wealth.
- refurb 3y ago
  Does what work? The US has one of the highest median wages in the world.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    Median wage does not mean living wage. The living wage in other countries is quite a lot lower. Their money goes far further. Just because we have big starting number doesn't mean we can thrive with big starting number.
    - refurb 3y ago
      Please define living wage then.
      - t-writescode 3y ago
        Sufficient earnings to be able to afford housing, food, the necessities for modern life including internet and cell service, health care in countries where it’s not part of your taxes, and a standard emergency in your country (in the US, this would be a medical emergency, like a broken bone) as well as some on top for enjoying your life a bit.
        refurb 3y ago
        What kind of housing? Would a 1 room apartment shared with another adult suffice? What kind of food? Is 1MB internet ok? A flip phone? And what kind of healthcare? Cutting edge healthcare or the basics? “Living wage” means nothing without answering those questions?
        t-writescode 3y ago
        housing: * sufficient for a single parent food: * the federal government has established projected costs of food per person healthcare: * I believe that all healthcare should be covered, so that. If not that, then an HSA with enough additional money added to their salary to cover the maximum out-of-pocket expenses Internet: * average internet available in the area with a minimum of "sufficient to live-stream video footage from one's house for as many residents as live in that place", so parent and child can both join Zoom meetings for whatever reason. The tactic you're performing here is called "Sea lioning" and it's a bad-faith tactic; but I'll answer the questions just in case you didn't know what I meant by what I said.
        refurb 3y ago
        housing: sufficient for a single parent A single parent could share a 1 bedroom apartment with another single parent. That's ok? I believe that all healthcare should be covered No country covers all healthcare. The tactic you're performing here is called "Sea lioning" and it's a bad-faith tactic; but I'll answer the questions just in case you didn't know what I meant by what I said. You didn't answer the questions at all. Saying "it needs to be sufficient" is not an answer. And calling it "sealioning" doesn't change that.
mft_ 3y ago
That a higher minimum wage causes job losses is a long-held but unproven economic theory, and attempts to study it have suggested it might be wrong. "...that have deepened the amount of data that shows the original theory about the minimum wage causing job losses is likely wrong." [0] [0] https://theconversation.com/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-kill-jobs-economists-have-been-trying-to-answer-this-question-for-a-century-and-finally-starting-to-gather-data-157575 https://theconversation.com/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-ki...
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  You seem to have conflated the minimum wage discussion with the living wage discussion.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    Per my argument, anyone working a living amount of time should earn a living wage. Since someone working 2, 20 hour a week jobs is working a living amount of time, they should also be paid a living wage. Since those two jobs won’t know about each other, the exact number of hours should not have an impact on your per hour wage. Therefore the minimum wage should be the living wage.
  - mft_ 3y ago
    No conflation. The living wage is a concept --a wage level required to achieve a certain standard of living-- rather than an instrument. You wrote: "If all jobs must pay a living wage..." - and it therefore follows that if all jobs pay a wage level at least that of a 'living wage', then the living wage becaomes the effective minimum wage paid by all jobs. Therefore evidence regarding the effects of a higher minimum wage are entirely relevant to a discussion of paying everyone at least a (higher) living wage.
fzeroracer 3y ago
The economics already don't work. For example there are many jobs currently where they struggle to find workers because the pay is so low and no one wants to do it. Rather than raise wages, they're instead hiring children, often illegally and lobbying to get the regulations lessened. Companies will do anything to avoid raising wages so they need to be forced to the table to do so.
- kazen44 3y ago
  or the people working the jobs need govermental handouts to basically survive. Which actually means the business isn't competitive and can only exist by socializing it's losses. If the goverment needs to provide food stamps for your employees so they don't get into financial trouble, and your bussines cannot or will not provide them with a living wage. The bussiness should simply cease to exist.
  - angmarsbane 3y ago
    OR instead of companies going under b/c the numbers no longer make sense....governing bodies could work to reduce the minimum cost to live, those necessary costs like housing and transit (to work and home). I agree that businesses need to pay enough for people to live, and wages have been falling increasingly short of that which is why labor organizing is rising. Businesses can pay more (which some businesses won't be able to so they'll shutter), or the costs that workers need to pay can go down (more types of businesses can exist).
autoexec 3y ago
> That’s noble of you, but the economics don’t work for all types of job. If all jobs must pay a living wage, many entry-level and lower-paid part time jobs will simply go away. If a business requires someone to spend 40 hours a week doing something, but cannot afford to pay them a living wage then that business should close. They are a failure and should get out of the way so that a competent business owner can replace them. Worker exploitation should not be keeping failed businesses afloat. Starbucks does not have this problem. They're just exploiting workers to stuff their own pockets and could easily ensure that their employees are all able to afford to live on their wages. There was a time, not very long ago, when a single person could support themselves and a family on their wages. Paying a full time employee so little that they can't even support themselves should be illegal. All this "think of the children" nonsense ignores the fact that most jobs paying minimum wage are not held by children, and that most kids don't need full time hours (and arguably shouldn't work that long anyway since they have school) and anyone, even someone in an entry level position, still absolutely deserves a living wage for their time.
- sennight 3y ago
  > ...but cannot afford to pay them a living wage then that business should close. There is actually a solution for that not involving burdensome regulation: capitalism. Crap business models get outcompeted. > They're just exploiting workers... Slavery is illegal, so these poor coffee slaves have bigger fish to fry. > There was a time, not very long ago... Before the US offshored all its heavy industry and proudly declared itself a "service based economy". > ...even someone in an entry level position, still absolutely deserves a living wage for their time. lol. There do exist people so useless that their labor doesn't even rate minimum wage. Now the bottom rungs of the ladder are gone for them, and they can't even get on the job training. The military figured this out a long time ago, which is what brought about the creation of IQ tests. Anyone below 80ish couldn't be trusted to do anything without constant direction.
  - chabes 3y ago
    > There is actually a solution for that not involving burdensome regulation: capitalism. Crap business models get outcompeted. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we?
klyrs 3y ago
Starbucks' revenue in 2022 was $33B. Their profit was $22B. That is an incredibly high margin for retail. These jobs wouldn't evaporate if Starbucks was paying a living wage.
- DaveExeter 3y ago
  Where did you get those numbers from? Obviously Starbucks has massive margins but I can't imagine that massive!
  - allset_ 3y ago
    Not OP, but it's easy to find these numbers as it's a publicly traded company. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/gro... https://investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/financial-releases/press-release-details/2022/Starbucks-Reports-Q4-and-Full-Year-Fiscal-2022-Results/default.aspx https://investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/financial-rele...
    - OnlyLys 3y ago
      I'm not an accounting professional, but the official Starbucks report says that for fiscal year 2022, their "GAAP Operating Margin" was 14.3%. That seems to contradict the macrotrends.net website, no?
      - allset_ 3y ago
        You are correct it seems to be incorrect, apologies. That's what I get for not looking closely (and trusting Google search to promote factual info in the info cards).
      - klyrs 3y ago
        No, there isn't a contradiction here. GAAP Operating Margin is smaller than Gross Margin by definition.
8note 3y ago
It's not particularly sensible that the owners should profit in that case?