Minimum Wage, revisited

[Ominous Gamer]

Positions come and go in the private sector.

I find your suggestion that all government positions are magically more secure than private sector, simply because government exists, to be insane. Not only are we subject to the same financial planning and uncertainty that the private sector deals with, we're far more vulnerable to a much greater threat. Politicians. All it takes is a shift in the wind, a group (or retiring individual) with an axe to grind, and your livelihood is pulled out from under you. Your work, your position, dissolved with no greater reason than being in the way of some special interest. People completely removed from your line of work, from your chain of command, being able to come in and decide what stays and who goes.

You yourself have declared libraries obsolete. you honestly think there are people in government without the same shortsighted opinion?

That's a bit harsh.

A more polite way version: Overcoming job/life inertia can be tough. I needed a STRONG push to get out of the movie theater biz, which landed me a job I found out I did NOT like, but paid better than what I was making, and then led me into another job with the same company that I LOVE.

With OG's decription of what he currently does sounds like he should shop around if he does not like what he gets paid now. He just has to hit the pavement/internet(obviously not giving up his current job until he finds one), and then he can negotiate a better rate of pay (as opposed to government jobs...where you really can not).

complicated more so when there is a family involved, and you're the current bread winner. Maybe loyalty is old fashioned (not to ignore that it can be abused), but I've seen what this place is capable of, I still remember a time when respect flowed down and for valid reasons. Maybe I'm pulling at something that's not there yet, but I believe there is a light at the end of this tunnel.

[GGT]

Then don't bring up an irrelevance if you don't want to discuss it please.
Lets get back to the minimum wage then - how high should it be?

It's easy to use catchphrases like living wage without being specific. Whether federally or even just one state please could you state a figure as to what that means?

Again, it's about the minimum, not how "high" it should be. Ideally it would incorporate costs of a 'basket of goods/services' necessary for every-day life -- in our civilized society -- like groceries, housing, fuel, a doctor's visit (or catastrophic health insurance). Adjusted for inflation, using national and state data, as it's done now to calculate COL and "poverty" levels. It's a relative figure, which means it should be modified over time.

The point you're missing is that federal minimum wage hasn't been updated in about six years, even though the other variables for income groups (and what "poverty" or "working poor" means) are regularly re-calculated...and used as rubrics for public assistance. States are either net-contributors or net-users of federal funds, so it ends up being a national debate for every tax payer.

Texas is one example of a low(er) state minimum wage, some 30% of residents with no health insurance, a higher use of Medicaid, and the debacle over expanded Medicaid coverage. Same thing applies to their use of federal funds for disasters/emergency planning. The political example was played-out recently, when legislators from net-user states (Texas) refused to appropriate federal funds for net-contributor (NJ, NY) east coast Sandy damaged states.

$9/hour didn't pan out, so I'd settle for $8.25-$8.75. That would make the federal minimum relative to circa 1990's instead of the 1970's, but it'd be a start.

[Loki]

I find your suggestion that all government positions are magically more secure than private sector, simply because government exists, to be insane. Not only are we subject to the same financial planning and uncertainty that the private sector deals with, we're far more vulnerable to a much greater threat. Politicians. All it takes is a shift in the wind, a group (or retiring individual) with an axe to grind, and your livelihood is pulled out from under you. Your work, your position, dissolved with no greater reason than being in the way of some special interest. People completely removed from your line of work, from your chain of command, being able to come in and decide what stays and who goes.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Millions of private sector jobs disappear even in good years. Meanwhile, public sector jobs are cut only in dire economic circumstances, a problem that doesn't even affect most people with lengthy tenure. Public sector workers are also incredibly unlikely to be fired for anything but extreme incompetence; people in the private sector get fired all the time. Even when public sector workers are let go, they have an inside track on similar government jobs.

[Ominous Gamer]

Millions of private sector jobs disappear even in good years. Meanwhile, public sector jobs are cut only in dire economic circumstances, a problem that doesn't even affect most people with lengthy tenure.

I'm going to go ahead and request a source that shows that even in good years the private sector loses more jobs, in relation to over all size, compared to the public sector; and while you're at it remember to keep the results limited to reasons that you claim shield public workers. It wouldn't exactly be fair to count in people quitting, moving, etc.

Even when public sector workers are let go, they have an inside track on similar government jobs.

Going to need you to source this one too. I've already discussed personal experiences that show this is not a universal statement, and when businesses close locations or consolidate tasks, one of the first PR statements they put out is how they do everything they can to make sure those employees affected are found positions elsewhere in the company. Hell even the game industry in the past couple of years has examples of studios hiring staff in mass from smaller or larger competitors that turned off the lights.

[Aimless]

I'm guessing people--competent or otherwise--working in small town public libraries and the like may not be all that secure if other people decide to cut down on library funding. The public sector jobs that are "secure" are the jobs that exist for the sake of govt/bureaucracy. All other jobs are always at the mercy of "dire economic circumstances" and politics.

[Loki]

Fast-food workers, who already have taken to the streets in New York, Chicago and St. Louis, are seeking to roughly double their hourly pay to $15 per hour from around minimum wage, which in Michigan is $7.40 per hour.

http://news.yahoo.com/fast-food-work...233240858.html

Maybe they can ask for $150 an hour next year.

[Dreadnaught]

In Detroit? If NY ever begins to really free-fall, I hope I don't stick around wondering why things are shitty.

[Aimless]

http://news.yahoo.com/fast-food-work...233240858.html

Maybe they can ask for $150 an hour next year.

Why would they?

[RandBlade]

You're right, they should only ask for $30 next year . It shouldn't reach $150 at that rate until mid 2016.

[Aimless]

You're right, they should only ask for $30 next year

Why would they do that?

[Loki]

Why would they do that?

The average wage in the country is about $23 an hour. Would you care to tell me why an unskilled laborer that can be easily replaced should make anywhere near that?

[RandBlade]

Why would they do that?

Asking for a doubling of wages this year, if granted why not ask for a doubling next?

[Aimless]

Asking for a doubling of wages this year, if granted why not ask for a doubling next?

Can you really not think of a single reason why? Why don't you ask for an annual salary of £100 million at your next job interview?

The average wage in the country is about $23 an hour. Would you care to tell me why an unskilled laborer that can be easily replaced should make anywhere near that?

I would not care to tell you because I have not said that they should. If you're curious I suppose you could read their arguments. My point is not that they should make $30 an hour; my point is that these DreadLoki slippery slope "arguments" impoverish discussions. They're brought out in a lazy attempt to cast some position as being absurd. The people asking for $30 an hour are not absurd. They may be wrong, they may be dyscalculic, they may be misguided, they may be deluded--but they're not absurd. What is absurd is the argument that, just because someone's asking for $30, they have no reason not to ask for $1,000,000 instead. I can right off the top of my head think of at least one self-serving rational reason why they shouldn't/wouldn't ask for $9,000,000,000 an hour.

[Aimless]

Asking for a doubling of wages this year, if granted why not ask for a doubling next?

Can you really not think of a single reason why? Why don't you ask for an annual salary of £100 million at your next job interview? This is a quetion about the real world, not a problem out of Raven's progressive matrices.

The average wage in the country is about $23 an hour. Would you care to tell me why an unskilled laborer that can be easily replaced should make anywhere near that?

I would not care to tell you because I have not said that they should. If you're curious I suppose you could read their arguments. My point is not that they should make $30 an hour; my point is that these DreadLoki slippery slope "arguments" impoverish discussions. They're brought out in a lazy attempt to cast some position as being absurd. The people asking for $30 an hour are not absurd. They may be wrong, they may be dyscalculic, they may be misguided, they may be deluded--but they're not absurd. What is absurd is the argument that, just because someone's asking for $30, they have no reason not to ask for $1,000,000 instead. I can right off the top of my head think of at least one self-serving rational reason why they shouldn't/wouldn't ask for $9,000,000,000 an hour.

[RandBlade]

Can you really not think of a single reason why? Why don't you ask for an annual salary of £100 million at your next job interview?

I'm not the one demanding a doubling of wages. If you can't see anything wrong with doubling wages then not sure what to say. And when these absurd demands get granted then wage inflation sets in with similar demands next year. See hyperinflation of the past.

They're brought out in a lazy attempt to cast some position as being absurd. The people asking for $30 an hour are not absurd. They may be wrong, they may be dyscalculic, they may be misguided, they may be deluded--but they're not absurd.

Demanding a doubling of wages is absurd.

[Aimless]

I'm not the one demanding a doubling of wages.

And why aren't you demanding a doubling of your wage every year?

And when these absurd demands get granted then wage inflation sets in with similar demands next year. See hyperinflation of the past.

See the fact that there has been no hyperinflation of wages in the US--or in basically any developed western country--in this century, let alone of the minimum wage.

Demanding a doubling of wages is absurd.

It is misguided and doomed to fail, but in this case it is not irrational, which is why the slippery slope argument is what's really absurd.

[Veldan Rath]

If misguided and doomed to fail...wouldn't that fall under irrational...or actually a PR stunt?

[Aimless]

If misguided and doomed to fail...wouldn't that fall under irrational...or actually a PR stunt?

Provided they know what we know and reason the way we reason, yes.

[RandBlade]

And why aren't you demanding a doubling of your wage every year?

Because demanding a doubling of your wages is stupid. Conceding a doubling of wages would be even worse.

These idiots are doing so though.

See the fact that there has been no hyperinflation of wages in the US--or in basically any developed western country--in this century, let alone of the minimum wage.

Maybe because ludicrous demands like this are scoffed off?

It is misguided and doomed to fail, but in this case it is not irrational, which is why the slippery slope argument is what's really absurd.

Why is it not irrational in this case? If they get their demands met it'd be even less irrational to demand it next time (since precedent already says they may get their demands met).

[Aimless]

Because demanding a doubling of your wages is stupid.

And why would it be stupid for you to ask for millions of pounds a year?

Maybe because ludicrous demands like this are scoffed off?

...

Why is it not irrational in this case? If they get their demands met it'd be even less irrational to demand it next time (since precedent already says they may get their demands met).

Many countries and several US states have let their legally mandated minimum wage levels rise over time. Many unionised workers the world over have seen their wages rise over time. The same slippery-slope arguments and straw-manning can be applied to these developments. Perhaps this should signal to you that slippery slope arguments are not in fact very good and that you are in your rage wilfully blinding yourself to the fact that there's a lot more going on in the real world.

[GGT]

I don't see anything "deluded" about doubling a minimum wage of $5/hour. In some US states it's even less than that, especially for agricultural and food service industry workers with temporary, seasonal, or part-time status.

What's delusional are those who won't admit that millions of people aren't being paid a decent wage for their work. National averages are a lame way to continue justifying what is, in real comparisons, more like working for $2/day.

What's even more perplexing is seeing those same people turn around and complain about subsidies for public health and education, lumping every social service or safety net into the "welfare" category, as derogatory.