McDonalds: "What, my peon, you don't work two full time jobs?"

[Grey Fox]

This is not true, in my experience. Factory jobs are coming back, and they pay pretty damn well around here. Most start at $15/hour in this area.

Well that is fantastic news.  From what I have read they tend to be around $10.00.

Even that's far better than minimum wage. Two people earning that amount would be able to live together and raise a family. Not easily, but the bare necessities would be met.

You live in a crazy world tho. 10$ is minimum wage here.

[merithyn]

A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.

I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.

"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"

Except that there are plenty of people working to cut those welfare benefits.

[Berkut]

Note: I am NOT against the basic idea that there is such a thing as a minimum wage.

I am very, VERY much opposed to the idea that what that wage ought to be should be driven by the idea that every single job in America ought to provide a living wage to anyone willing to do it 40 hours a week, and no more than 40 hours a week.

You have to work more than 40 hours/week (ie two jobs if one is only 40) to make a living wage? Tough shit. Most people who make living wages work more than 40 hours a week already - how is this a problem that the state needs to solve?

[Grey Fox]

Because it's not 1716 anymore?

[Caliga]

Because it's not 1716 anymore?

I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.

[Berkut]

A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.

I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.

"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"

Except that there are plenty of people working to cut those welfare benefits.

Then fight against them.

Raising the minimum wage is a terrible way to try to solve that problem.

The MINIMUM WAGE is the MINIMUM. The least. The very least. The smallest. The lowest. The crappiest, most lame ass jobs that cannot attract anyone except those who cannot do any better.

You can't just raise it only for those people who have decided that they want to raise a family working the fry machine at Wendy's, if you raise it you are raising it for everyone, and most people making minimum wage are not doing so as their career as a single earner.

If the only job you can get, and the very best you can do, is minimum wage, then the problem is not with the minimum wage, the problem is with you.

I absolutely reject the notion that this is a problem that the gentle hand of government needs to solve. In fact, to the extent that it is a problem, the government CANNOT solve it, and will only make things worse.

[Berkut]

Because it's not 1716 anymore?

We've had a minimum wage for a long time. That isn't even the question.

[lustindarkness]

The more they try to fix things, the more they mess it up.

[Grey Fox]

Because it's not 1716 anymore?

I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.

It's random date.

Modern, western, society is based on a 8/8/8 daily split. You cannot just change that overnight.

[Berkut]

If we are willing to simply ignore any kind of basic economic principles when it comes to setting things like minimum wage, and we are since this entire argument at no point ever once even raises any actual economic risks or costs associated with the claim (apparently there is zero downside to setting the minimum wage equal to some state defined "living wage" level) why not just set the minimum wage to a really decent living wage?

If you need to make $15/hour to not need any kind of assitance, and this is no risk, no cost, no reason not to just set this by fiat, why go with %15? Why not $20?

Hell, median household income in the US is something like $50k/year, and we all agree that the need for two workers in the family kind of sucks, so how about we set the minimum at $25/hour, so that one person working alone can make enough to match the median income, and their spouse won't even need to work?

There are no negatives to the state simply setting wages, so why not set them at a level we all know people really deserve, regardless of their capability, education, intelligence, drive, interest in working, availability, etc., etc.?

Or is there in fact some good reason to NOT set wages at $25/hour for everyone?

If so, why should we assume those reason don't apply for $20/hour, or $15/hour?

How about we actually make ECONOMIC argument for what minimum wage ought to be based on a rational evaluation of what a minimum wage job actually is, rather than bullshit metrics like "Hey, everyone should be able to make enough working 40 hours week at the lowest paying job anywhere to not need any kind of assistance and be able to live a reasonably comfortable life".

If the problem is that the lack of median income jobs means that there are people out there who would like to work a median income job who are forced instead to work minimum income jobs, then the solution is to create more median income jobs, not magically turn minimal income jobs into median income jobs by the state waving it's magic wand to just raise salaries, like that kind of direct intervention into the job market comes at no cost.

[Josquius]

I don't buy the argument that there has been such a shift, but even assuming it was true, how is the state defining that businesses pay people more than the market rate (potentially MUCH MUCH more) going to make things better? Has the state setting wages ever made it better? Can someone provide some actual arguments from actual economists stating that the state really should have a part in deciding how much private business pay private individuals at the macro level, and that this will HELP the problem of not enough median income jobs?

It being good for the economy isn't particularly part of the argument as to why people should be paid a living wage. It's certainly nothing I mentioned in the post you quoted. The concerns are far more social and humanitarian.
However there probably is a good argument to be made that it could be good for the economy too, more people spending, more people dragged out of living situations liable to lead into crime, etc... But that's a digression. I'm not going to go out and do your research for you.

The problem is that rich folks like yourself just don't understand how things are for people on the bottom rungs. Its not as simple as "If you don't like the pay at your job then go work somewhere else", people have to take what they can get, in today's world it is often pretty damn difficult to even get a full time minimum wage shop-job; zero hours contracts are a increasingly big issue.
The corporations make millions on the backs of these people who can't even afford to live a normal life, who can't afford to try and get themselves out of a minimum wage job. Given there's plenty of people who want the jobs if we left it up to companies to decide market rate then people would be absolutely screwed over. It is thoroughly immoral to let them do this, a minimum needs to be set.

If the problem is that the lack of median income jobs means that there are people out there who would like to work a median income job who are forced instead to work minimum income jobs, then the solution is to create more median income jobs, not magically turn minimal income jobs into median income jobs by the state waving it's magic wand to just raise salaries, like that kind of direct intervention into the job market comes at no cost.

And you think the state and left wingers wouldn't want to wave your magic wand and suddenly make a bunch of decent median income jobs?
The world is what it is, you have to work with the shit you're given.

[Berkut]

The problem is that rich folks like yourself just don't understand how things are for people on the bottom rungs.

Your right, I have no ability to understand what it is like for people on the "bottom rungs". I am one of 5 kids, two older brothers who are lifetime career drug addicts and criminals, a mother who is a drug addict, and at no point in my childhood did my father ever make more than $20k a year trying to raise a family of seven people with a mother who spent most of her time beating the shit out of her kids rather than working.
I have no fucking clue what it is like to work a minimum wage job, even though I got my first minimum wage job at the age of 14 by lying about my age so I could work.

You don't have any idea what I do or do not understand. I suspect I understand much better than you do, in fact.

[garbon]

Because it's not 1716 anymore?

I'm sure most people work much longer hours now than they did in 1716.

It's random date.

Modern, western, society is based on a 8/8/8 daily split.

[Berkut]

And you think the state and left wingers wouldn't want to wave your magic wand and suddenly make a bunch of decent median income jobs?
The world is what it is, you have to work with the shit you're given.

I think everyone would like to do so, but it is no more an actual solution than waving the magic wand and trying to turn minimum wage jobs into median income jobs.

Like I said in the rest of the post you simply cut out, it would sure be nice if every job everywhere paid $15/hour. It would be more nice if they paid $20 though, and even better if they all paid $25. If we are going to define the wages based on what we wish to be true, why stop at $15?

[Valmy]

A good way to make sure jobs don't come back is to have the state step up and decide what everyone should be paid.

I meant the welfare state part.

I would MUCH rather see that difference made up with the welfare state. At least then we don't have the fucking government trying to decide what everyone should make - that is classic liberal fucked up interference in the market that will inevitably backfire in the long run, just like all that kind of crap does, every single time.

"Everyone should be able to afford a college education! Lets give out grants and guaranteed loans to all! What can go wrong?" "Hey, how is it that average tuition costs are going up 10% a year every single year forever and ever? I don't understand!"

If I wanted set wages I would probably not have been for the free-trade globalization stuff

All I was saying is that McDonalds (and similar paying jobs) may be the best a significant part of the work force can get right now.  So hammering them for not aspiring to more was my primary gripe.  I mean it was policies that we supported that are were going to do this in the short term.  Probably is a necessary evil that we have these people on welfare right now.