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

[Sheilbh]

I've read lots of horror stories about the local regulation in the US. I'm not sure if it's the same as you're describing but things like requiring a license to be an interior designer and so on

Do you still have apprenticeships over there?

Also I wonder if this is a business culture thing as well. I've read that the US has far more employment based in large firms (with HR departments ) than is normal in the UK and the rest of Europe.

[Josquius]

Tyr, for most businesses the main cost is payroll, so yes, raising salaries even $1 an hour across the board would have a huge impact on operating costs, and as dps points out for something like fast food would have a direct impact on the cost of the food... which you'd probably bitch about too.

Maybe. For some companies certainly having to pay staff more could be painful.
Yet way too many people like to posit that companies just about getting by is already the norm when it's really not.

[CountDeMoney]

I've read lots of horror stories about the local regulation in the US. I'm not sure if it's the same as you're describing but things like requiring a license to be an interior designer and so on

I possess no certifications in my profession, which is why I am not qualified to perform in it.

Do you still have apprenticeships over there?

Only for the traditional labor stuff, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc.  But they tend to be union-related industries, so most Americans and Languishites shit on the very concept of apprenticeship.

Also I wonder if this is a business culture thing as well. I've read that the US has far more employment based in large firms (with HR departments ) than is normal in the UK and the rest of Europe.

The entire US Human Resources industry has managed to become the very definition of the self-licking ice cream cone.  Quite an accomplishment.

[Grey Fox]

HR is in the business of justifying the existence of HR, at all times.

[Razgovory]

Okay, if you want to maintain there is only one reason why people take a minimum wage job then no need having a discussion.

Okay, I'll bite what are the other reasons people take minimum wage jobs besides there not being a higher paying job available to them?

According to Berkut, they're all students working their way through college, or people trying to earn a little extra money for that holiday cruise.

I am genuinely curious.  Presumably a person would take a higher paying job if were available over a lower paying job.  I could think of a few that don't apply very often.  A person not wanting to do a job they find morally or socially objectionable, like a chick not wanting to be a stripper so taking a job stamping tax forms for the state at minimum wage, or a guy who who's qualified to be say a draughtsman but loves the prestige and respect of working at McDonalds.  I suppose there is the possibility of moving to the other side of the country to find a job ("I can work as a minimum wage grunt at Arby's but I'll get paid a dollar more if I move 700 miles across the country!  Better pack up all my things!".  Though that's sorta stretching the definition of "available".  Of course there's the other side of the coin on that one, where you are told your job is has been relocated. "Do to the Corporate shuffle you and all your coworkers have been moved to Hanoi.  You have three days to report or you will be terminated.  Well, one.  Shame we had to the fumigate the building this week".

[grumbler]

There are people who work lower-paying jobs than they are qualified for because those jobs offer more flexibility in working hours than higher-paying jobs.  I know a nurse that is currently working in retail because it allows her to be home when her grade-school daughter gets home from school.  I suspect that she isn't alone in this.

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe. For some companies certainly having to pay staff more could be painful.
Yet way too many people like to posit that companies just about getting by is already the norm when it's really not.

Cal was talking about raising prices.  As pointed out earlier, margins on fast food can be pretty small, six cents in the case of a dollar burger.

One notion that you, and many others approaching an issue such as this from the left, seem to be unfamiliar with is return on investment.  The whole point of opening a business, such as a new fast food restaurant, is to achieve a return on investment.  So you saw gosh golly, the franchise owner is making $100,000 a year, he can certainly afford to pay his workers more.  You neglect the issue of how much money he put into the business to start it, and what kind of yield that 100K represents.  If the return drops to the point where the owner is better off putting his money in the bank and earning bank interest, he won't open the business.

[crazy canuck]

And as I said empirical research suggests there's either no significant impact, or there's a very low impact.

I think this is the main point.

[Razgovory]

There are people who work lower-paying jobs than they are qualified for because those jobs offer more flexibility in working hours than higher-paying jobs.  I know a nurse that is currently working in retail because it allows her to be home when her grade-school daughter gets home from school.  I suspect that she isn't alone in this.

I am so proud of you!   You didn't ignore me!

[Sheilbh]

One notion that you, and many others approaching an issue such as this from the left, seem to be unfamiliar with is return on investment.  The whole point of opening a business, such as a new fast food restaurant, is to achieve a return on investment.  So you saw gosh golly, the franchise owner is making $100,000 a year, he can certainly afford to pay his workers more.  You neglect the issue of how much money he put into the business to start it, and what kind of yield that 100K represents.  If the return drops to the point where the owner is better off putting his money in the bank and earning bank interest, he won't open the business.

Your view of the left's position is entirely wrong though. It's not that you look at the franchise owner making lots of money so he can afford to pay them more - as I've said if the issue were inequality then the EITC is the best way to deal with it.

But it's about why the state is topping up those wages and if that's a good use of a safety net welfare state? As I say I still can't see how this isn't a subsidy and given that how it's justifiable. I mean is it only unionised workplaces you don't like subsidising

[Admiral Yi]

It seems to accurately describe Squeeze's view. Probably Seedy's too, in his more lucid moments.

As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable.  Y'all are taking it as a given.  The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage.  That makes no sense.  If I'm penniless and food stamp-less, why would I turn down a job paying $7.50 if that's the best I can do?

The EITC *does* act as a subsidy over a very narrow range, because receipt is conditional on earning something.  I say a narrow range because it cuts out for single workers at a very low level.  If you work full time at minimum wage you're not going to get any Clintondollars.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage.  Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes.  It's unbelievable.

[Admiral Yi]

The money is decent if you have kids.

[Sheilbh]

As I mentioned to Gups earlier, whether welfare acts as a subsidy is debateable.  Y'all are taking it as a given.  The logic being that in the absence of food stamps et al, low wage workers would demand a higher wage.  That makes no sense. 

I don't think anyone's saying abolish food stamps, but get rid of it for people in work. If you can't even subsist on your wage then the pressure to increase it will be there.

Safety net welfare, for the destitute, shouldn't be available for people who are employed. Welfare that's about mitigating extra costs (for the disabled who can work, or for parents) or about redistribution (EITC) are fine.

As I say welfare for employees is one of the fastest growing areas of spending - certainly in the UK - and we don't have much money, we're not going to have much money any time soon and an ageing population is going to increase the pressure on the welfare budget. I think pressure to rise wages has been kept subdued by growing involvement from the state and cheap credit - neither of which have helped us very much in recent years. I can't see how it's a sensible use of a very limited welfare budget to top up the wages of low paid staff.

I can't differentiate the state making the difference on the pay of the poor from any other form of subsidy. I'm generally pretty liberal, so I'm almost always opposed to subsidies and I can't think of a single compelling reason to keep this one.

If I'm penniless and food stamp-less, why would I turn down a job paying $7.50 if that's the best I can do?

Surely that somewhat cuts against the way you described it earlier:

A franchise owner is willing to pay someone $7.25 an hour to flip burgers.  Many people are currently willing to flip burgers at that wage.  Why should we tell them they cannot?

The EITC *does* act as a subsidy over a very narrow range, because receipt is conditional on earning something.  I say a narrow range because it cuts out for single workers at a very low level.  If you work full time at minimum wage you're not going to get any Clintondollars.

Okay. As I say EITC seems to me to be the most redistributive policy in the US. It seems in its design far more about spreading around the wealth than anything else. Which is fine if you're into that sort of thing.

Edit: And of course this goes to what I was saying in the tax rising thread, personally I think if you're in low paid work you should be earning enough to be paying taxes.

[grumbler]

Yeah, the EITC is complete fucking garbage.  Made $22k once, and I still actually paid taxes.  It's unbelievable.

Nothing much that's funnier than seeing freeloaders whine. 

I still actually paid taxes