Minimum wage/Livable Wage

This line of discussion.

I do understand it.

I have no counterpoint at the moment, but I do have a question: Could you paint a more complete picture before drawing a conclusion? If you do so, I may respond to it.

They would be affected in more ways than you imply. McDonald's is also not a good example to use because their profit margin is ridiculously high.

The company is ranked #423 in the Fortune Global 500 most profitable companies in the world. The list is populated with tech companies, resource companies, banks, drug companies, auto manufacturers, huge conglomerates, etc. It's a big list of big companies that make some serious bank. And there's McDonald's in there. I'm uncertain, but I think they're one of the few (or the only) fast-food companies on there.

And you know what? I wouldn't be surprised if it's the company that has the lowest average (or median) pay. I also wouldn't be surprised if it has by far the highest number of minimum wage workers (or even near-minimum-wage workers).

Also, this: McDonald's Billion-Dollar Profit Is Awkwardly Close To The Amount It Costs Taxpayers Every Year

Could you outline these?

Could you point them out?

Which ones, and why?

Could you point them out?

Do you? Do you really?

 

My issue is that you aren't looking at the whole issue. You're zeroing in on one thing. Call it reductio ad absurdium, call it causal reductionism, call it an incomplete comparison, call it an irrelevant conclusion—call it all of these things. Perhaps it is difficult to tell what the real problem is, because I don't know where you're going with this. Where are you going with it? That minimum wage increases are bad for the working poor?

You'll need to work harder. You'll need to do more. There is a lot missing in what you're saying.

No one will be convinced.

I understand this. But what's your point? Minimum wage increases are bad because it forces McDonald's to increase productivity?

Where are you going with this?

What an odd thing to say.

Well, it kinda is when you consider that they don't pay well enough for the things that government assistance provides. What would you call it instead?

This wouldn't really be an issue if the U.S. had a stronger welfare state.

The debate on minimum wages wouldn't be as much of an issue either.

I still want to know your point.

 

I don't know of anyone who thinks it's a slam dunk. It's a correction. It's one of several things that should happen. You don't have to oppose a minimum wage increase to get people to deal with the other issues. They're not directly connected like that. The $7.25 rate is really low. America's economy can handle a raise of the minimum wage rate. America's economy will benefit from it ultimately. But, no, it's not the only thing that should be done.

I know, it seems like a pretty dire situation for many Americans who just can't get what they need by "normal" means. I myself think that America needs a stronger welfare state. The minimum wage rate, as I've said, is just one of many issues. There is no real universal health care, and for many of America's poor, education sucks, healthful food is difficult to access, crime is a problem, and debt is an unfortunate reality. They get trapped, making upward mobility more difficult than it is for the average American. A stronger welfare state would serve to better allow the poor equal opportunity compared to those who don't have much concern regarding even the most basic provisions of life.

Well, for starters, increasing the minimum wage will likely help prevent a deflationary situation, which is still a real risk in the American economy. As for long-term inflation concerns, I'm doubtful that it will be a big issue in the American economy. Since the early '90s, it has barely broken 4% (the historical average is 3.34%). As far as I know, it's operating below the global average. Relatively speaking (i.e., compared to other developed nations), the U.S. has a fairly low cost of living.

 

How do you know this?

That's another issue, and it shouldn't lead us to dismiss the issue of the minimum wage rate.

How do you know this?

My issue is that you're not looking at the impact of minimum wage increases beyond "increased labour cost." This is a narrow view that won't lead to anything worthwhile other than a half-assed look at business operating costs from a labour standpoint. It's not interesting, nor is it worthwhile.

I thought you said you didn't draw any conclusions. Are you contradicting yourself, or is this just a personal opinion/gut feeling?

You're doing it again. (Reductio ad absurdium, causal reductionism, incomplete comparison, irrelevant conclusion, etc.)

You obviously don't. Where are you getting this?

The problem is that you aren't demonstrating this very well. That's why it's not convincing.

It can't be intellectually dishonest if it's a) factual, and/or b) a restatement of what you wrote. This may be tied into your not being clear with what you're getting at. Don't mistake your confusion for my being intellectually dishonest. It's not about me. It's about you. (It shouldn't be about either of us at this point, really.)

This time, it can't be intellectually dishonest if I didn't even state it.

It's like you hate having to support your own statements.

It's low in that it's an insufficient rate for many to support themselves in providing even the basic necessities in life. I don't view the minimum wage rate as a be-all and end-all (despite my suspicion you may think I do—for a really odd reason). I see this as a minor correction in lieu of stronger social programs or a stronger welfare state to help the poorest of Americans. Looking at the minimum wage in America compared to other wealthy nations, it's low. You think that raising the minimum wage will be ineffective and will cause problems of inflation and unemployment (which I can only assume is a gut feeling of yours at this point). If true, this seems to me a fundamental weakness of the American economy.

A minimum wage rate of around $10 should be feasible, and even desirable. If the American economy cannot support such a rate, it's indicative of serious economic issues that place America's position as a leader at serious risk (something that is already at risk for different reasons). Whether this weakness is a result of Corporate America having become competitively complacent under its nanny state protections, or because of a lack of a strong welfare state, these aren't something that can be corrected overnight. Looking closer at these issues, maybe it should be no wonder that places like Canada and Scandinavia are far more stable economically, and places like China are far more competitive economically, than the U.S.

America is starting to look a lot like Russia, and it seems to me a result of corrupt capitalism. Pretty soon, it will no longer be the go-to place where everyone wants to bring their family for the good life. They're going to start going elsewhere, and there are many other, more desirable places.

It's becoming more apparent that the American Dream was always a myth.

 

Wow, Ace. It continues to amaze me just how much you fail to communicate (both reading and writing) on even a very basic level.

Let me be outline this for you, so there is no confusion:

• You haven't been clear on what you mean.
• You make your lack of clarity my responsibility.
• You make it difficult for me to clarify what you mean.
• You take what much of what I write and somehow interpret it as its opposite or inverse.
• You ignore certain important aspects of what I write and often end up filling in gaps with assumptions that are false (and, again, often the opposite).
• You keep reiterating problematic premises despite my best efforts to notify you that it's useless to discuss them until they make sense.
• We don't disagree on anything, because I haven't even issued my opinion on the content of what you wrote.

I'm not sure you even know much about my opinions. We rarely get that far.

 

No one is taking about doubling or tripling the minimum wage rate.

Conversely, one could say, "In some cities, we could halve or quarter the living expenses, and it would help the poor immensely."

The problem? It's an unrealistic notion.

I suggest sticking to practical parameters. This is something you refuse to do in your false claims about the minimum wage.

I haven't made an argument. I don't know what you're talking about. Are you thinking of someone else?

From my perspective, this is an overstatement.

If I end up getting personal here, it's usually attached to one's content, and not directed at an individual exclusively. I sometimes end up taking things personally with you (though I probably shouldn't), because it often seems like you're being difficult intentionally. You constantly eviscerate my posts that point out problems in your posts, and then you point out that I have the problem. You end up mischaracterizing what I say, and I'm sorry if that it sometimes gets taken personally. If you're not doing this stuff intentionally, then maybe I should try another tactic with you.

This isn't a stylistic issue. It's a structural and substantive issue.

Various styles I can appreciate and admire.

I don't have a problem with your style. I actually kind of like it.

 

I'm still waiting for a citation.

Do you mean on a net basis across the entire economy? I ask because I want to know whether you think raising the wage of millions of workers from $7.25 to $10.10 will have no effect on them.

I want to know if a 30-hour workweek now worth $303.00 instead of $217.50 will have no effect.

I want to know if a 30-hour workweek now worth $303.00 instead of $$262.50 for someone with a "decent" wage of $8.75 will have no effect.

Bear in mind that raising the minimum wage has a marginal impact at best on inflation and jobs. If not, then the impact (whether positive or negative) is debatable, meaning no one is sure—meaning the impact can't be all that bad.

Bear in mind that Canada's average minimum wage is around the proposed rate of $10.10. Bear in mind that the Canadian child poverty rate by all measures have either held steady or declined over the past decade. The minimum wages across the provinces rose an average of eight times within that same period.

Bear in mind that the hours of those working part-time fluctuate, making it difficult to maintain a schedule and to keep hourly wages high. If every hour they work is now worth $2.85 more per hour, I can't see how that would be ineffective to their situation.

Yes (again), there are separate issues affecting the poor, such as housing costs, health care costs, childcare costs, high crime, poor quality education, poor job prospects, poor job skills training, etc. These are all issues that should be dealt with. But saying that minimum wage increases are "ineffective" to individuals who earn minimum wage is blatantly false. While the effect may be minimal, it's certainly better than not raising the rate.

I'm not about to say lowering housing costs for the poor is ineffective because they don't make high enough hourly wages. This is because I take a more comprehensive approach to issues like poverty. (Poverty is a complex problem that no silver bullet will kill.)

Also, consider that many people look at wages when considering their housing affordability. I'm sure you did that when you shopped for your current home. You considered your income and possible expenses to see what kinds of homes you could afford. Depending on your "philosophy of home," your balance between "nice" and "reasonable" will vary. Either way, affordability is an issue. What do you think a couple making, on average, $60,000 a year will look at in, say, Virginia? A two-bedroom apartment renting for $1,078 is reasonable, depending on the area. It represents 22% of their income. Totally affordable.

Now consider this:

Out of Reach 2013: Virginia: National Low Income Housing Coalition

Even a one-bedroom apartment worth half that ($539) would require a Housing Wage of $10.36 to make it reasonably affordable.

Even at $800 rent, it would require two income earners working at around $7.50 an hour (no less than full-time) to make it affordable. Is that reasonable? How many two-bedroom apartments are going for $800 in Virginia? What about single income earners?

At this point, perhaps stop wondering why anyone making less than $10 an hour has problems with debt and affordability.

How cheap will government need to make housing before considering a rise in minimum wages? Do you support free government housing for the poor?

 

It now seems trite to pull out this sort of thing, but have a look at this chart:



We don't even have to make this about income disparity. Just look at the change in real family income of the bottom 20%. Do you realize the impact of a 7.4% erosion in purchasing power when you're already poor? I don't. That's part of the issue here. Most of us can't empathize with that sort of thing because either we've never been there, or we're not currently stuck there.

Things may have been hard in 1979, but they're worse now. We haven't even gotten into the cost of rent and other living expenses. This is just income. This is why I don't buy the argument that income (e.g., the minimum wage) isn't an issue among the poor. It obviously is.

Now look at this chart:



This illustrates much of the problem regarding income. The average has been flat for decades. We're not even talking about just the poor here. And look at the history. Between WWII and 1972, wages rose an astounding 75%. Between 1972 and 2009? After some long-term erosion, it has managed to crawl up to an increase of just over 4%. Again, we're talking average here. Guess where most of the gains went.

So the American economy was used to steadily increasing incomes until recent times, when the new normal became mostly about the wealthy garnering most of the economic gains, leaving relatively little for everyone else. If we didn't have that first chart, we'd think the American economy has been struggling for decades. It hasn't. A lot of wealth was generated between the '70s and today. A lot of wealth is still being generated—$15.7 trillion annually is a lot of money.

Now we can talk rent. Are they high? The U.S. rent index hasn't been out of step with inflation, and inflation hasn't been a big problem. Do you think rents would be considered high among the poor if their incomes actually increased instead of eroded? Do rents ever go down? Are they cheaper than they were in 1979, accounting for inflation?