I live in the past about the value of a dollar

[Sarah in SC]

hausfrau, my 16 year old niece has been babysitting for years, and works summers in retail. The 14 year old nephew just got his first bagboy job at the local supermarket where they live. So definitely still some teenagers that work to get their spending money.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

FWIW, the OP suggested that the minimum wage could go up to $15/hr. But the raise in the minimum wage as proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act is to $10.10 per hour, with an index to inflation thereafter. And passage of that is pretty iffy, since it's a Democrat bill.

The chance that fast-food workers might be paid $15/hour is pretty remote here in southern Wisconsin. Most service wages are stuck around $10-11. I looked into a part-time job doing editorial work awhile back, and discovered that the job for a fairly well-known regional columnist paid $11/hr. She also wanted me to keep her books (she's syndicated). AND, she wanted me to be at my desk at 7:30 a.m. I told her that $11 wasn't worth rolling out of bed to me.

 

[aaronc879]

FWIW, the OP suggested that the minimum wage could go up to $15/hr. But the raise in the minimum wage as proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act is to $10.10 per hour, with an index to inflation thereafter. And passage of that is pretty iffy, since it's a Democrat bill.

The chance that fast-food workers might be paid $15/hour is pretty remote here in southern Wisconsin. Most service wages are stuck around $10-11. I looked into a part-time job doing editorial work awhile back, and discovered that the job for a fairly well-known regional columnist paid $11/hr. She also wanted me to keep her books (she's syndicated). AND, she wanted me to be at my desk at 7:30 a.m. I told her that $11 wasn't worth rolling out of bed to me.

I also live in Wisconsin. When I was looking for my first fulltime job back in 2000 I ended up getting a factory job for $9/hr. When I lost that job in 2011 and was looking for a new job, most of the factory jobs paid $8-10/hr. So in a decade the pay for low end jobs didn't move at all. I don't think that's ok. I don't think the Federal minimum should go all the way to $15 but I think going to $10 and then being indexed to inflation is the right thing to do. High cost of living cities can go higher but the Federal minimum shouldn't be that high.

 

[MRG]

I saw a recent local add for work at a major retailers warehouse. The pay was $9.00 hour, they said 60 hours per week. I'm assume 20 of those are at $13.50 but I'm not asking.

 

[hausfrau]

hausfrau, my 16 year old niece has been babysitting for years, and works summers in retail. The 14 year old nephew just got his first bagboy job at the local supermarket where they live. So definitely still some teenagers that work to get their spending money.

Our family was not affluent. Starting at age 12, I was responsible for buying most of my things, except for food and shelter. In some ways it was good. I learned the value of a buck at an early age.

My husband was raised the same way, except in a rural area where the work was hard labor. My own DD has a much more comfortable existence. She has the benefit of a small trust fund too. She has more money now that I did in my 20s after years of working. LOL. I haven't worked out the whole pre-teen/teenager working for money thing in my head yet. That time is still a few years away, so I have some time to think about it.

I read a lot of forums where the parents' position is that being a good student is their kid's only job. DH and I juggled working and going to school. Is school harder today than it was 20 years ago? I took all the AP and advanced classes I could and did fine. I know some college kids who have never worked. Some played sports in HS that took up a lot of time. That seems to consume more time today than it did in the past.

I'm going off on a tangent now, so I'd better stop rambling.

 

[aaronc879]

I saw a recent local add for work at a major retailers warehouse. The pay was $9.00 hour, they said 60 hours per week. I'm assume 20 of those are at $13.50 but I'm not asking.

A while back I was trying to get a job through an employment agency. I told them i'd only do factory work if it paid $15+/hr. He called me a few days later and said he had a job for $10/hr but with a minimum 60 hours a week. He said that was more money than 40 hours at $15/hr. I hung up and changed his name in my contacts to "do not answer". Apparently the factories answer to employees saying they can't live on the wages is to make them do back breaking work for 60 hours instead of 40 rather than giving them a more reasonable wage. These companies should at least be giving profit sharing bonuses to those who are making the top people rich.

 

[Mulligan]

FWIW, the OP suggested that the minimum wage could go up to $15/hr. But the raise in the minimum wage as proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act is to $10.10 per hour, with an index to inflation thereafter. And passage of that is pretty iffy, since it's a Democrat bill.

The chance that fast-food workers might be paid $15/hour is pretty remote here in southern Wisconsin. Most service wages are stuck around $10-11. I looked into a part-time job doing editorial work awhile back, and discovered that the job for a fairly well-known regional columnist paid $11/hr. She also wanted me to keep her books (she's syndicated). AND, she wanted me to be at my desk at 7:30 a.m. I told her that $11 wasn't worth rolling out of bed to me.

The local news yesterday had a segment about the protesting fast food workers wanting $15. One of the workers being interviewed stated she also had to get various government subsidies because her salary wasn't a living wage. I doubt this $15 wage will come to fruition, but I wonder if those who are also getting subsidies have connected the dots that they may lose them and not be any better off.
Its too bad the economy/government doesn't work in a simple manner. Higher wages, less government subsidies, less need for government, then lower taxes. Everybody wins!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Andre1969]

The local news yesterday had a segment about the protesting fast food workers wanting $15. One of the workers being interviewed stated she also had to get various government subsidies because her salary wasn't a living wage. I doubt this $15 wage will come to fruition, but I wonder if those who are also getting subsidies have connected the dots that they may lose them and not be any better off.
Its too bad the economy/government doesn't work in a simple manner. Higher wages, less government subsidies, less need for government, then lower taxes. Everybody wins!

I've heard some stories about people getting hourly wage increases, but then actually asking for their hours to be CUT, so that they can still get the government subsidies. I don't know how true it is, as you can find pretty much anything online these days to either back up or refute an argument... Raise Minimum Wage and Workers Cut Hours to Keep Welfare

 

[NW-Bound]

... I think going to $10 and then being indexed to inflation is the right thing to do. High cost of living cities can go higher but the Federal minimum shouldn't be that high.

Sounds reasonable to me, particularly about the inflation indexing. SS benefits and Fed tax brackets are already indexed, and that also makes sense.

 

[samclem]

Sounds reasonable to me, particularly about the inflation indexing. SS benefits and Fed tax brackets are already indexed, and that also makes sense.

What is the rationale for assuming that the value of the least valuable labor will increase with inflation? Or, if we think that the "minimum wage" (I.e. the wage below which the government will not allow two willing parties to exchange labor for money) isn't linked to the value of the work done, we should increase it to about $50/hour so everyone will be prosperous.

 

[Mulligan]

What is the rationale for assuming that the value of the least valuable labor will increase with inflation? Or, if we think that the "minimum wage" (I.e. the wage below which the government will not allow two willing parties to exchange labor for money) isn't linked to the value of the work done, we should increase it to about $50/hour so everyone will be prosperous.

I cannot say if the value would increase with inflation, but my concern is with people being incentivized to stay on the dole instead of working. In some states the incentives dwarf low wage worker pay. Not an easy answer with technology always looming in the background to eliminate workers at a certain cost point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

A while back I was trying to get a job through an employment agency. I told them i'd only do factory work if it paid $15+/hr. He called me a few days later and said he had a job for $10/hr but with a minimum 60 hours a week. He said that was more money than 40 hours at $15/hr. I hung up and changed his name in my contacts to "do not answer". Apparently the factories answer to employees saying they can't live on the wages is to make them do back breaking work for 60 hours instead of 40 rather than giving them a more reasonable wage. These companies should at least be giving profit sharing bonuses to those who are making the top people rich.

The John Deere plant in my area is hiring assemblers starting at $16/hr. That's a union shop, of course.

 

[NW-Bound]

What is the rationale for assuming that the value of the least valuable labor will increase with inflation? Or, if we think that the "minimum wage" (I.e. the wage below which the government will not allow two willing parties to exchange labor for money) isn't linked to the value of the work done, we should increase it to about $50/hour so everyone will be prosperous.

No, there is nothing to guarantee that the value of the least valuable labor will increase with inflation. There will always be people without specialized skills, and if we care to give them enough to live on, we will index their wage.

There is a HUGE difference between indexing minimum wage and paying everybody $50/hr.

SS recipients already get the advantage of indexing, and their personal inflation may be lower than the cost of living increase. So, some seniors get a "windfall profit". Should we do something about that?

I cannot say if the value would increase with inflation, but my concern is with people being incentivized to stay on the dole instead of working. In some states the incentives dwarf low wage worker pay. Not an easy answer with technology always looming in the background to eliminate workers at a certain cost point.

+1

Unless we are like 3rd world countries who do not care or afford to do anything about their poor, we have to provide some welfare benefits. Would it be better if the low-paid workers do something rather than just sit around?

 

[samclem]

There is a HUGE difference between indexing minimum wage and paying everybody $50/hr.

Well, eventually there won't be

Unless we are like 3rd world countries who do not care or afford to do anything about their poor, we have to provide some welfare benefits. Would it be better if the low-paid workers do something rather than just sit around?

If people decide the welfare benefits are more attractive than a $10/hour factory job, and if our competitors in the world are paying $9/hour, I hope there won't be anybody wondering were all our jobs went, or why welfare/subsidy outlays keep increasing.

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, eventually there won't be

If that is caused by inflation indexing, then my SS benefit is going to be more than $500K/year too.

If people decide the welfare benefits are more attractive than a $10/hour factory job, and if our competitors in the world are paying $9/hour, I hope there won't be anybody wondering were all our jobs went, or why welfare/subsidy outlays keep increasing.

Now, that is a real problem! The only way to solve it is to have our productivity higher, or to have inflation low.

Is it possible that if US employers have to pay more, they would invest in ways to boost their employees' productivity? We need ways to incentivize employers to do that. Of course, it is easier said than done.

Man, I am not an economist, nor a businessman. Well, I tried to be one, the latter not the former, and I failed. Perhaps I should keep my ideas to myself.

PS. I may be all wrong, but I think the US is quite competitive against other Western countries. It's not just that our labor cost is lower or the same, but our cost of living is lower too. So, our workers enjoy a better living standard than many other countries despite a lower wage. I remember seeing several OECD reports on this.

 

[Walt34]

The 14 year old nephew just got his first bagboy job at the local supermarket where they live. So definitely still some teenagers that work to get their spending money.

We see that too on the rare occasions when we go to the grocery when school is out, or during the summer. A lot more teenagers working then.

 

[haha]

I'm glad I'm not alone. I feel better, I'm not telling stories about the depression like my parents told me , these things are in my recent past, but now that I think about it , their depression stories told to me in the late 60's and early 70's are the same timeframe. Omg I'm getting old. My dad used to say he saved it a penny or a nickel at a time now he spends it by the dollar.

I don't quite get the depression stories. I am one of the oldest people here, and my parents were not particularly old when I was born. But there was not one day of depression in my lifetime, and parents worked steadily through what is known as The Depression.

I think these themes just go well with the Little Orphan Annie tone that is so popular here. It is more likely that people on this board had grandparents or great grandparents that might have been affected by the depression.

Ha

 

[Danmar]

This tradition of kids delivering newspaper or even HS students working after-school jobs is dying out, I think.

I think you are right. Parents seem to be richer and fund their kids whereas 50 years ago this was rare. Also, jobs seem more difficult to find now? Recent immigrants probably the exception to this trend.

 

[Amethyst]

My parents were directly affected as teens/young adults. But I also have a brother 14 years older...the Depression and WW 2 deprivation stories were vivid and detailed in our house, and scary to a young child. And my bedtime prayers included, "and please don't let the bombs drop, amen." So yeah, some of us are closer to this stuff than you imagine..[

I don't quite get the depression stories. I am one of the oldest people here, and my parents were not particularly old when I was born. But there was not one day of depression in my lifetime, and parents worked steadily through what is known as The Depression.

I think these themes just go well with the Little Orphan Annie tone that is so popular here. It is more likely that people on this board had grandparents or great grandparents that might have been affected by the depression.

Ha

 

[MRG]

My parents were directly affected as teens/young adults. But I also have a brother 14 years older...the Depression and WW 2 deprivation stories were vivid and detailed in our house, and scary to a young child. And my bedtime prayers included, "and please don't let the bombs drop, amen." So yeah, some of us are closer to this stuff than you imagine..[

QUOTE=haha;165671 3]I don't quite get the depression stories. I am one of the oldest people here, and my parents were not particularly old when I was born. But there was not one day of depression in my lifetime, and parents worked steadily through what is known as The Depression.

I think these themes just go well with the Little Orphan Annie tone that is so popular here. It is more likely that people on this board had grandparents or great grandparents that might have been affected by the depression.

Ha

[/QUOTE]

Mine too, DF's DF was killed working in '29. The depression though the eyes of a 13 year old boy was pretty scary.

 

[Looking4Ward]

I've heard some stories about people getting hourly wage increases, but then actually asking for their hours to be CUT, so that they can still get the government subsidies. I don't know how true it is, as you can find pretty much anything online these days to either back up or refute an argument...

Before I FIRE'd, I opened an office in a Texas border town. I wanted to pay premium wages because I wanted to attract the best talent in that market. Had tons of applications, but once hired several of the new employees did exactly that - they requested that I lower their pay because they hadn't realized how much assistance they were going to lose.

 

[razztazz]

Before I FIRE'd, I opened an office in a Texas border town. I wanted to pay premium wages because I wanted to attract the best talent in that market. Had tons of applications, but once hired several of the new employees did exactly that - they requested that I lower their pay because they hadn't realized how much assistance they were going to lose.

It's pretty bad when even so called "premium wages" still don't cover the bills. This is that much-referred-to American economic mechanism of people figuring their budget at the kitchen table. They're not trying to steal anything. They're just trying to pay the bills. Now, if they come out better working 36 hours a week and taking advantage of a subsidy than working 40 hours a week for "premium wages", why the hell would anyone who understands work, money, and productive activity, like say... a businessman... or even another kitchen table figurin' American, see this as a negative?

If the wages were all that premium they would scoff at the subsidy and avoid all the evil gubmint freedom steeling paperwork

 

[NW-Bound]

... they requested that I lower their pay because they hadn't realized how much assistance they were going to lose.

Come to think of it, they are not doing anything different than us who shuffle money around to lower our tax, or to get ACA subsidy, or retire early because working more years get no more SS benefits, or file-and-suspend (when it was still allowed), or to claim SS spousal benefits, etc... And these people have a more legitimate reason to do so because their pay is low, not high as our pay who can afford to ER.

People are free to optimize their situation under a given system, as long as they are not doing anything against the law.

 

[Andre1969]

Come to think of it, they are not doing anything different than us who shuffle money around to lower our tax, or to get ACA subsidy, or retire early because working more years get no more SS benefits, or file-and-suspend (when it was still allowed), or to claim SS spousal benefits, etc... And these people have a more legitimate reason to do so because their pay is low, not high as our pay who can afford to ER.

People are free to optimize their situation under a given system, as long as they are not doing anything against the law.

Honestly, if I was in the same situation, I might be tempted to do the same thing. If raising my pay makes me lose other benefits, and the net effect ends up being a wash, then I'm not really getting ahead. But, if I cut my hours, keep the other benefits, at least I have more free time, even if I'm not any better off financially.

 

[Looking4Ward]

]It's pretty bad when even so called "premium wages" still don't cover the bills. ....

They really were "premium wages" for the area, at or slightly above that market's high end for the type of work and skill required and what some would probably call a living wage. I suppose I could rack up enough bills that no amount of wages would cover them but that's probably another topic.

...why the hell would anyone who understands work, money, and productive activity, like say... a businessman... or even another kitchen table figurin' American, see this as a negative?

Come to think of it, they are not doing anything different than us who shuffle money around to lower our tax, or to get ACA subsidy, or retire early because working more years get no more SS benefits, or file-and-suspend (when it was still allowed), or to claim SS spousal benefits, etc... And these people have a more legitimate reason to do so because their pay is low, not high as our pay who can afford to ER.....

Honestly, if I was in the same situation, I might be tempted to do the same thing....

I wasn't offering an opinion (negative or positive) of the situation, just evidence in support of another poster's comment that they had heard of such requests.

The challenge for me as an employer was that I couldn't simply reduce their wages because they had asked me to, especially after having performed a market wage survey and knowing what the local range was for the type of work involved.

Instead, the best I could do was offer them a transition to part time which preserved the pay rate but would give them the flexibility of reducing their hours.

Some took it, some didn't. I would assume those who didn't eventually figured the math worked in their favor. But in either case I didn't and still don't draw any judgments.