Workers Win Fight For Living Wage, Then Lose Jobs

Navysnipe

Tell me, what 18 year dishwasher deserves $15 an hour. At that age, they are more adept at picking their nose than actually working.

What is amazing is that 18 year old could spend a year as a apprentice and never see anything close to minimum wage the rest of his life. What all these people don't think about is the worth of the actual job being done.

reply to post by Xtrozero


They don't think about the worth of the actual job or they don't have the work ethic to hold onto such a thing. A lot of minimum wage situations experience high turnover because the workers don't have the ability to hold down the job long-term.

It would be interesting to see how many of them are actually long-term employees, and of those that are, how many of those actually are making more than the minimum. It might be surprising.

OpinionatedB
If family and a living wage is important to people, rather than expecting others to provide the living wage while doing nothing and having zero responsibility...

Well that really makes it easier to point out the flaw in your logic.

You expect us to believe that an employer will actually hire and pay a wage, no matter how low, to someone that does nothing and has zero responsability? Seems like a bit of doublespeak going on.

reply to post by daskakik


I guess English isn't your first language - you just said the same thing she did, and acted as if it were somehow different.

The whole point, it appears, is that if you have no skills, you can't get a skilled job, and so must settle for the dregs. The obvious remedy for that is to get some skills.

As OpinionatedB said, and as you confirmed, no one in their right mind is going to pay you way too much for doing nothing. What she said, and you seem to have missed, is that expecting someone to is lunacy.

Only Collectivists think that's ever going to happen in their strange (and completely unsustainable) little Utopias.

well it looks like logic has failed
i guess well just have to see what the next few years bring wont we

nenothtu
I guess English isn't your first language - you just said the same thing she did, and acted as if it were somehow different.

No I didn't. I pointed out how illogical it is to say that people in unskilled positions don't do anything and have no responsibilities.

The whole point, it appears, is that if you have no skills, you can't get a skilled job, and so must settle for the dregs. The obvious remedy for that is to get some skills.

And the point of those advocating a living wage is that even unskilled labor should provide a certain standard of living.

As OpinionatedB said, and as you confirmed, no one in their right mind is going to pay you way too much for doing nothing. What she said, and you seem to have missed, is that expecting someone to is lunacy.

Yeah, but you still missed my point.

reply to post by daskakik


your point being its these so called "do nothings" that make the company function in any capacity other than a single person selling their wares/services

daskakik

No I didn't. I pointed out how illogical it is to say that people in unskilled positions don't do anything and have no responsibilities.

Either you've never worked an unskilled job, or you've never worked a skilled one. I've worked both, and can say in all honesty that "no responsibilities" pretty much sums up unskilled jobs. Now, if one works an unskilled job and pretends like it's a responsible position, it's not long until that individual is promoted. If they treat it as an unresponsible position, they stay where they lay.

Yup, "no responsibility".

And the point of those advocating a living wage is that even unskilled labor should provide a certain standard of living.

It does - just not the "standard of living" they would LIKE to become accustomed to. That requires a bit more work and planning... and a willingness to take on responsibilities. If you want something, you'll work for it - if you won't, then you just didn't want it that badly. It's the height of ridiculousness to expect someone to just hand it to you, and bump up your paycheck beyond the point that the job is worth simply because you haven't the ambition to achieve your own goals.

I've achieved most all of mine - but I didn't set the bar beyond rationality or my own ability, nor am I driven by greed and the need for a new TV or new car or other trinket of the week to keep up with the Joneses. You might break down and cry to witness my "standard of living", but I'm happy with it. I have much more than money, much more than money can even buy.

Yeah, but you still missed my point.

Yeah, I guess I did. What IS your point?

nenothtu
Yup, "no responsibility".

I have worked them both.

I'm not sure what your definition of responsibility is because to me it seems like a dishwasher is responsible for pumping out clean dishes, burger flippers have to make sure those burgers are properly cooked and anyone doing any type of cleaning is responsible for keeping their assigned areas clean.

Also you left out the part of the statement about them doing nothing. They are all doing something, unless you have a different definition for that as well.

It does - just not the "standard of living" they would LIKE to become accustomed to.

Who are they and how did you come to have the power or tech to read peoples minds?

Yeah, I guess I did. What IS your point?

OpinionatedB's statement is illogical. If no employer would pay someone to do nothing then, those unskilled workers who she claims "do nothing" must be doing something.

Also, as the post above yours states, they are part of what makes a company function. If that isn't something then I don't know what is.

reply to post by HanzHenry


The fortune 500 companies do not pay their employees minimum wages. They pay their employees competitive market wages. That's why they have the most skilled workers.

The small business, new business, or business that operate in a thin margin pays minimum wages.

The increase in minimum wage is lobbied by large corporations because they know new competitors would be knock off the market. Thus, the large monopolies are able to gouge prices w/ no competition.

Liberals are brain dead and r useful idiots enslaving themselves to the same thing they want to fight.

I really don't care if libs destroy themselves with their ignorant policies, but when they take everyone around them down too. It just pisses me off.

reply to post by amfirst1

You have some good points but honestly..

Can we drop the B.S. lib vs. republican nonsense? It's a little juvenile an really only hurts your own point from impacting anyone on the other side whose mind you may want to change.

The situation is silly on this specific issue. $5 per hour + tips is a perfectly fine wage to be working for a small business. The focus of this fight should have started and ended with large corporations who pay their employee garbage because they transfer the ownus of employment expenses to the franchisee. Meanwhile, they rake in cash with their huge margins and mainly sit on their butts doing nothing, and their franchisees do all the work for them and cover their ongoing expenses.

daskakik

I have worked them both.

I have my doubts about that, given your inability to discriminate between the two, but can't really say "no, you haven't", since I don't know you. It's entirely possible that you have, and still never learned the difference due to an idological blockage.

I'm not sure what your definition of responsibility is because to me it seems like a dishwasher is responsible for pumping out clean dishes, burger flippers have to make sure those burgers are properly cooked and anyone doing any type of cleaning is responsible for keeping their assigned areas clean.

I suppose we are quibbling over a difference in degree. When one has "responsibility" only for himself, then it's not normally thought of as a "position of responsibility". It's generally a bad idea to start arguing absolutes where none exist. It appears to me that you are attempting to drag the discussion in the direction of absolutes merely to win an otherwise untenable point. Good luck with that.

Also you left out the part of the statement about them doing nothing. They are all doing something, unless you have a different definition for that as well.

Again, you are attempting to steer in absolutes when none exist. Everyone is doing "something", even if just using up otherwise perfectly good air, and not much else. The point is not whether they are doing literally "nothing" (which would necessarily be a cessation of existence), as you seem to insinuate, but what the value of whatever they ARE doing is. In many cases, that amounts to "nothing" in the grand scheme of things. You (and "they") are placing more value on the jobs they do than the jobs are worth. If they do "nothing" jobs, they get "nothing" pay. The ones who cut the checks decide what the job is worth, not the other way 'round. If any particular individual places more value on their abilities, then they ought by rights exercise those valuable abilities if they want that higher pay, not demand more for less.

Furthermore, no one forces them to take the jobs at the pay rate they do. If they don't like the pay rate, they can always keep looking. I have done so before, and they are no better than I. When I agree to work for a particular rate, that is the rate I work for. If I don't like the rate for the job at hand, then I keep looking. To do otherwise is to give the employer more power than he is due, only to attempt to wrest that back to yourself later - and that rarely works out well. Better not to give it up to begin with.

I have made scads of money (which I mostly either pissed away or gave away) for jobs as "simple" as toting a gun and looking mean, occasionally getting shot at and shooting back. You may not think of that as "skilled", but there is a particular skill set involved nonetheless, and the level of responsibility was much greater than your average janitor - sometimes responsibility on the order of millions of dollars or hundreds of lives. On the other hand, right now I work for what amounts to minimum wage (it wasn't, until the first of the year, when minimum wage caught up with my pay), but I pretty much do nothing but unload trucks and process merchandise. I do that on two different jobs to account for a total 40 hour week. Not bad, I'm happy with it, and am unwilling to overvalue those jobs. There is no real skill or responsibility involved, and I can't think of any reason I would need more money than that. If I did, I'd get another job commensurate with my needs, not try to wring some poor saps arm between his shoulder blades and try to force more out of him than the job was worth.

Who are they and how did you come to have the power or tech to read peoples minds?

"They" are the folks who want a big check for a little job, simply because they want a higher "standard of living" than they are willing to work for. No mind reading necessary - simple observation will do, and I've been a People Watcher for ever. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure out that a burger flipper who wants to make enough money at that to live in Bel Air is letting his reach outstrip his grasp.

OpinionatedB's statement is illogical. If no employer would pay someone to do nothing then, those unskilled workers who she claims "do nothing" must be doing something.

There's that attempt at "absolutes" again which I mentioned before. Absolutes ARE generally illogical, which is what makes it so amusing to watch you attempt to turn the discussion to absolutes while at the same time acknowledging the illogic of that. That's not a "point", it's a poor argument.

Also, as the post above yours states, they are part of what makes a company function. If that isn't something then I don't know what is.

Perhaps, but they are not essential to it's function. There are always replacements around the corner should they attempt to overvalue the job at hand and price themselves out of work. Those replacements have a better grasp on value per job.

It's not rocket science, which is why, I suspect, they keep making that same mistake over and over again.

nenothtu
I suppose we are quibbling over a difference in degree.

The original statement, which wasn't even made by you, was stated in absolutes.

I don't know why you felt the need to defend it if you believe "Absolutes ARE generally illogical". Which was what I was saying.

What any particular person sows and reaps has nothing to do with the comment that I was replying to.

You can't speak about the size of the check people are asking for, in exchange for the work they are putting in, without it being a sweeping generalization.

nenothtu

Perhaps, but they are not essential to it's function. There are always replacements around the corner should they attempt to overvalue the job at hand and price themselves out of work. Those replacements have a better grasp on value per job.

It's not rocket science, which is why, I suspect, they keep making that same mistake over and over again.

and you can replace the engine in a vehicle but try arguing that its not not essential to the function of that vehicle
look im set start making $26/hour (not a crazy amount but far more than ive made working the #ty jobs i have so far)in a few months as an electrical technician a job i would happily do for minimum wage (ill take what theyre offering yes but i would most certainly do it for far less if it meant others that are payed less would see a raise) if unloading trucks and cleaning toilets payed the same i would still rather do what i have chosen to do
you may be happy working a job that could easily be replaced by an automated system for the less than what it cost to hire you for a year but then youre the product of an out modded system of economics and education meant to produce unthinking meat puppets for assembly line work that has been largely replaced by machines or foreign labor
most people i know however would much rather do what they find fulfilling like working in physics/programming/engineering/various arts etc. etc. etc.

you may prefer unloading trucks or "toting a gun and looking mean" but it would be folly in the extreme to assume we are all cut from the same stone as yourself

teslahowitzer
The basic theory is that a poor man cannot employ you, therefore you are left with the business owner...the rich guy. Now matter how he got his money, he, along with other rich guys own businesses that hire people. These people that work for the rich guy took the job at a specified rate at the point of employment. If you chose not to better yourself and stay linear you will live a linear life. It saddens me that some americans say these type things while Pedro crosses the border, takes his job, works his ass off, and betters his life for him and his family while the american cries "evil rich guy". Most people do not care of others view of them, but most border jumpers think you are a lazy spoiled prozak infested child in an adult body, and happy to take your job and everything that goes with it......

Except that theory is flawed. Every job I have ever gotten has come from a poor person. The poor significantly out number the rich, and they have needs and wants as well. Food, shelter, entertainment, and so on. Individually they may not have much purchasing power but collectively they create a need for a lot of jobs to be done. If you own a business I would expect you to realize this. Your customers are providing jobs, not you. Most of your customers (outside of a few fields) are not rich.

daskakik

The original statement, which wasn't even made by you, was stated in absolutes.

It must be in the reception. I didn't take it that way, but then I'm not predisposed to think in terms of absolutes. She says she didn't mean it in absolutes, but as hyperbole, which is the way I took it.

So it must have been in the reception if you took it that way.

I don't know why you felt the need to defend it if you believe "Absolutes ARE generally illogical". Which was what I was saying.

It was "hyperbole". Look it up. Absolutes ARE illogical - why do you think in such terms to the point where you cannot recognize hyperbole?

You can't speak about the size of the check people are asking for, in exchange for the work they are putting in, without it being a sweeping generalization.

Sure I can. I'm pretty sure I DID. Now, we could get into specifics I suppose, but it would just be tedious after the first couple thousand jobs that fit the exact criteria.

Big job, big money, little job, little money.

Little job, big money equals a shop closing. If you want the whole pie, open your own restaurant rather than working for someone else and demanding they pay what YOU think the job is worth. Cut out the middle man, and pay yourself what you think it's worth, rather than trying to rob someone else. After that experience, you might have a different outlook on how pay scales work, and why.

nenothtu
She says she didn't mean it in absolutes, but as hyperbole, which is the way I took it.

She did, where? She hasn't posted since you and I started this back and forth.

It was "hyperbole". Look it up. Absolutes ARE illogical - why do you think in such terms to the point where you cannot recognize hyperbole?

Right, in your first reply you said she and I were saying the same thing. You didn't recognize that we were not but suddenly I'm the one that can't recognize things.

Sure I can. I'm pretty sure I DID. Now, we could get into specifics I suppose, but it would just be tedious after the first couple thousand jobs that fit the exact criteria.

Well of course you can but, it would be hypocritical.

sirhumperdink

and you can replace the engine in a vehicle but try arguing that its not not essential to the function of that vehicle

Incorrect analogy. They are not "the engine", they are barely spark plugs. If they stop sparking, or never start sparking, you just replace them with plugs that WILL spark. In any job where any Joe can be pulled in off the street and trained to do it in 3 days or less is a highly replaceable job, not an engine overhaul or replacement.

If you want job security and the big bucks, be irreplaceable, or at least really difficult to replace. You won't stay at minimum wage for long like that, if you ever see it in the first place.

I'll give you a subjective example. I once worked in a warehouse, which is a fairly replaceable job. All it takes is a strong back and a weak mind. Five months or just under that after I started it, the boss came back to the warehouse and told the entire crew that if she could find two more of me, she'd fire the whole damned lot of them... then made me their foreman - over guys who had been there YEARS, but were just willing to squeak by on the minimum work. THEY thought they were worth more then they actually were, and got shown different.

look im set start making $26/hour (not a crazy amount but far more than ive made working the #ty jobs i have so far)in a few months as an electrical technician

Congratulations! That's the way to go - get a trade, get a skill, pump up your own value instead of demanding value you don't yet have.

a job i would happily do for minimum wage (ill take what theyre offering yes but i would most certainly do it for far less if it meant others that are payed less would see a raise)

As far as I know, there is no law preventing you from cashing your paychecks and redistributing your wealth as you see fit. If you have the courage of your convictions, you will do exactly that - give the boys your own raise. I've done it before - although the "raise" for the boys out of my own checks was more of the nature of "bonuses" - but the principle is the same. No one came to lock me up, so if I could do it, I presume you can as well.

if unloading trucks and cleaning toilets payed the same i would still rather do what i have chosen to do

Nothing wrong in doing what you like to do and making a living at it. The problems arise when the individual places more value on what they do than the people cutting the paychecks do.

you may be happy working a job that could easily be replaced by an automated system for the less than what it cost to hire you for a year

I think they've automated us about as far as they can with current tech, but if they ever build robots to do what I do, then I'll find something else to do. Not a problem. These days, I tend to avoid jobs that I can't just walk away from, whistling.

but then youre the product of an out modded system of economics and education meant to produce unthinking meat puppets for assembly line work that has been largely replaced by machines or foreign labor

I've worked exactly ONE "assembly line" job in my life, and I STARTED that one as a supervisor. All my people were paid commensurate with their work - not a minimum wage earner in the bunch. I quit after about 6 months, though. Not enough challenge in it, and too much tedium. I can't think of anyone I graduated with other than me who ever worked on an assembly line. I guess the meat-puppet training didn't take too well.

BTW, my "assembly line" job involved maintenace on one of those damndable machines, upkeep, running it, and making sure the line ran smoothly. Not a robot in the world that can do all that yet. Without that machine, I suppose we could have paid folks 30 bucks an hour to write out labels by hand, but i can't even begin to imagine what the end cost to you, the consumer, would have been had we done that. Still, if you're willing to pay the price, I suppose I could send an e-mail and suggest it.

most people i know however would much rather do what they find fulfilling like working in physics/programming/engineering/various arts etc. etc. etc.

Odd you should mention those particular fields. I have a university education in Physics and Astronomy, Programming, Engineering (Electronic Engineering specifically) and started one in "Art", but got kicked out of school for having too much fun, and I also have a Police Certification - all unused by me in the job market, but available if they ever become necessary. I have plenty of options, yet do what I do. How weird is that? Still, those fields you mention are fields involving "skilled labor" - you don't generally hire Physicists off the street and train them in 3 days or less. A PhD takes a minimum of eight years of training, in most cases. Even my Police training took a year at the equivalent of 12 credit hours a week at the Academy.

You do a marvelous job of illustrating my point - if you want the big bucks, enhance yourself! Don't just demand them for an unenhanced "skill set".

you may prefer unloading trucks or "toting a gun and looking mean" but it would be folly in the extreme to assume we are all cut from the same stone as yourself

I guess that goes without saying, but you've said it anyhow. It seems the "stone" is getting softer these days - maybe they cut workers out of soap stone (i.e. "steatite" for the Geologically enhanced) now.

It's probably more a matter of priorities than "ambition". I had the ambition to enhance my skills to make me more employable in a variety of fields, but my priorities eventually resolved to something other than living high on the hog. Nothing wrong with money - until it gets to the point where IT makes YOU, rather than the other way round.

daskakik

nenothtu
She says she didn't mean it in absolutes, but as hyperbole, which is the way I took it.

She did, where? She hasn't posted since you and I started this back and forth.

Weeeeell... Her back is in a state right now, so she can't sit up for very long to get online to reply much. Luckily for me, I'm married to her, and so can have face-to-face conversations in the matter. I asked her about it specifically, to make sure I'M clear on it - sometimes, I'm not. Since I'm in the thread right now, there's really no point to inconveniencing her and her back to jump into the fray as well, it being that we share pretty similar views on the subject.

Right, in your first reply you said she and I were saying the same thing. You didn't recognize that we were not but suddenly I'm the one that can't recognize things.

It was actually my fourth reply in the thread, but whose counting? I admit to misunderstanding YOUR post - I expected it was hyperbole as well, since I tend not to think in absolutes, and cannot fathom why anyone would. I stand corrected - I've seen that you were oddly literal about it.

Well of course you can but, it would be hypocritical.

How so? I work not ONE, but TWO of those low-paying, unskilled jobs. I believe I do have standing to speak in the matter. How is it "hypocritical" to recognize that what I do is not earth-shattering enough to merit more pay than it is worth?