General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA 16 year old should absolutely make $31K
This has been bothering me for a while.
Yes: A 16-year-old working 40 hours a week should make about $31K.
16 year olds don't work 40 hours a week unless they absolutely have to. Most of them would rather finish high school.
But for those who absolutely can't; yes: they should earn $31K per year, at the very minimum. Even for sweeping floors.
I can't believe this is actually a subject for debate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stone space
(6,498 posts)...somebody is going to expect that 16 year old to work 2080 hours in a single year, 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year, then he or she most certainly should get paid for each and every one of those 2080 hours.
brush
(53,778 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)But those who want to see 16 year olds working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year at substandard wages really do seem intent on exploiting youth labor in a big, big way.
brush
(53,778 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)brush
(53,778 posts)Any kid working a full-time job to get the 31k is not going to be able to go to college because he/she is working and not going to school to get credits needed to graduate from high school.
I don't even think it's legal for a 16-year-old to work a full-time job.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)But in the real world, who is going to hire an unskilled, inexperienced 16 year old and pay them that much?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mic drop.
Who is legally required to hire anyone ? You can pick up your mic..
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sorry, was that too complex a concept?
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Let's say you're 16, and live in a small town with small businesses. Who is going to pay them $15 an hour? Just because the wage is that high doesn't guarantee anyone a job.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)it may well make more sense for a business to hire the kid at $15 per hour than a 55 year old who's never used a computer for $20 per hour.
I do agree with this thread's OP that more seniority in terms of time served should not necessarily result in higher pay.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And what if he's not.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)then he won't be hired.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)cannabis_flower
(3,764 posts)when I worked at a tech support help desk ( we were supporting Bell Atlantic DSL) we had a high school student working part-time. He was one of our best techs and got promoted to tier 2. I'm sure he's doing well at whatever he's doing now.
world wide wally
(21,743 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)world wide wally
(21,743 posts)Sometimes being let go from one job only leads to finding one that pays better.
I don't get your point. Would you close down your successful business just to avoid paying someone more money?
fasttense
(17,301 posts)If an employer were to actually pay you what you are worth, then that employer could make NO profit from selling what you made while working for them.
That is the whole idea of capitalism. Joe hires you at $20 an hour to make a pair of shoes. If it takes you an hour to make a pair of shoes, and the cost of all his materials, energy, advertisement, business administration and equipment is $10, then if he sells those shoes for $30 he has made absolutely no profit. But if he hires you at $15 an hour and sells the pair of shoes for $30 then he just made $5 profit on each pair of shoes.
So it goes in every capitalist system. You are paid less than what you are worth. That's why so many people want to own their own businesses.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)You pass a law saying a 16 yr old will be paid 30K a year & the end result will be very few 16 yr old employees
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)They're the only thing that keeps scumbuckets like Blankenship from sending 7-year-olds to work in coal mines. You know, like the good old days?
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And how many small businesses would profit from paying an unskilled 16 year old $35k+ per year? I would venture not many.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)If a business can't pay its employees a livable wage, then it's not a business. It's an exploitation racket subsidized by the government.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)This.
If your business plan depends on exploiting people instead of paying them a living wage, maybe you need to rethink your business model!
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)doing most of the small tasks myself and not hiring someone for $15 who I would have hired for $8.50?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I don't think there are any laws about how many hours you can work for your own company. If your profits mean you have to work for less than a living wage, I would rethink your business plan and maybe look for other work, but that's just advice for you to take or leave.
If on the other hand, your business profits mean you are doing that menial work and netting $15 an hour or more for the time you put into your business, if you could afford to pay someone a living wage but just don't want to (see major fast food companies, for example), then it's an issue of greed. I don't know what to tell you about that except to look within yourself.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)and I decide to cook for myself instead of calling for delivery, I'm greedy and should look within myself.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I answered your question honestly. If you aren't looking for an honest discussion - if you're just looking to score a "gotcha" moment, then why are we talking about this?
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)just saying that at a certain cost people will choose to mow their own lawns, cook their own pizza, sweep out their own butcher shop.
I have a friend who is a drywall contractor. His biggest challenge was getting people to show up so a job that required ten workers was often understaffed, sometimes by half. He automated many of his processes and cut his payroll by 50%.
Is he greedy?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)school.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)meaculpa2011
(918 posts)who would make dinner at home rather than eat out.
When my landscaper raised his fees, many years ago, I bought a lawnmower.
I told him I wanted my lawn done on a Thursday or Friday, and he constantly came on Monday. So if I had a family gathering on Sunday I had to borrow a neighbor's mower and do it myself anyway.
Plus, when the kids left their bikes on the lawn, I didn't mow around them.
20 years later and I'm still mowing my lawn with the same mower. What's $200 a month over 20 years?
I too believe that EVERY worker should make a living wage and I'm all for a $15 minimum. However, there will be casualties.
You can't force anyone to carry 8 employees instead of 6.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If $5 extra is going to break the bank on a decision to eat at home, then you probably, and in all honesty should not be buying pizza at $15 either.
Ok, so you had a shitty landscaper, who not only raised prices, did crappy work. He should have been fired either way.
I completely agree that there may be casualties, however I fear some folks may be exaggerating the effect it will have. I recall similar arguments about how the cost of goods and services were going to skyrocket with the Affordable Care Act. I'm still waiting for that one.
Costs will go up, but I don't think that we will see anywhere near what I'm seeing posted. The price of a pizza is not going to jump 33% from $15 to $20. I personally feel we will see a jump, yet it will be smaller. I think it will be more in the neighborhood of 10 to 15% depending on the product.
$1 Fruit Parfait from McDonald's will now cost $1.15
$5 footlong from Subway would cost $5.75
$15 pizza from your local joint will cost $17.75
$20 salmon from Bonefish will now cost $23.00
$53 Cowboy Ribeye from Ruth's Chris will now cost $60.95
I think this is more realistic based on my experience. Wages are not all that drives business costs. They are but a percentage of your entire operating expenses.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)I've been in business for 35 years and labor in my industry runs better than 50% of finished costs.
I often work in high-labor-cost venues (New York, Miami, Chicago) and when I do I have to pass those costs on to my client.
When my client's budget won't support it, we have to seek other venues.
It's a fact of life.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The pinch of the reality of paying a $15 wage will not really hurt at all.
Just browse the BLS Occupational Outlook. You'll see that the vast majority of jobs in this country will not be greatly effected by a wage increase. You'll see that the group effected with the highest number of jobs and job growth already make within the $25 to $35K a year category.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/home.htm
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)not just the poor guys delivering the goods (other than capital and management). There are definitely limits to that, but if a small business can't cut it, maybe they need to be bought out, or just go out of business and let someone more efficient handle pick up any demand.
There will definitely be some disruptions in the short-run, but long-term I think we'll be better off.
Besides, the way most of these states are transitioning to $15/hour, if major disruptions occur, they can freeze the next incremental increase. I would not be surprised to see that happen in some areas.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)How do you suppose your electric company would respond if you told them "my business plan depends on me paying only $10 per month for electricity?"
If you want people to work for you but you can't pay a living wage, then you don't have a business: you're running a slavery operation.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Or you do it yourself.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Never made anything and never was subsidized by anybody. In fact I was generating tax revenue for the city and also spreading money around the city. (I had a new and used bookstore so I not only sold books to the public, I also bought books from the public.)
Businesses come and go, and what is a livable wage? I was living on my $5.40 an hour income back in the 1990s. I lived a little better when I went to $7.15 an hour, but I was living on $8.31 an hour (in today's money) for a part time job with no benefits.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)How many employees did you have? If you weren't paying a livable wage, then you were exploiting them. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but that's how it is. If you can't pay a livable wage, then maybe you don't need extra employees.
Also, if your employees had to receive public assistance to survive, then you were subsidized by the government. Just like Walmart in that regard.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)this living wage calculator http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/20103
tells me that I cannot live at my current wage, to say nothing of what I made last year. It has a living wage at $21,000 a year for one person. Officially my AGI was $14,636.33 for last year. I suppose the $3,504.50 that I spent on health insurance could also be part of my income, although officially it is pre-tax. That would put me at $18,100 still $3,000 below a living wage.
Does that mean I am dead?
I may not have saved any money last year. I got slammed with medical bills and car repairs. Something like $5,000 all told. But I put $6,500 in a Roth IRA last year and already put $6,500 in for this year. Got no public assistance either, unless you count the EIC of $15 that I will get, if I ever get my taxes done. I get a retirement savings credit of $1,000 which knocks my federal taxes down to zero. I don't consider either of those to be a subsidy.
I was not making any money for myself, how could I have had employees? I was making at least $3,000 a year less than their living wage in 1997 too. I could have lived on less too, although I did not have the luxuries that I do today. I had one dog, instead of three. I had no high speed internet, no genealogy service, didn't belong to a service club, didn't make donations to DU.
This year I am getting an Obamacare subsidy of perhaps $3,600, but I consider that to be part of my pay rather than a subsidy. Even if they increased my pay by $3 an hour, I would probably still get some subsidy. In fact, since I am no longer getting the insurance from work, my taxable income will be about $4,000 higher this year than last.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Obviously people can live on less. So obviously, in fact, that a suitable response is "no shit." There are homeless people in many towns whose income is less than $1000 per year.
But now I understand that you want this to be all about you, rather than the millions of people nationwide who are struggling to survive with multiple jobs. Yes, I can see how the national minimum wage should be based on the non-representative experience of one self-employed curmudgeon somewhere in the country.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)then their calculations are some kind of estimates.
I can actually live fairly well on $3,000 a year less than what they say is a livable wage AND I have been doing that for decades.
No, it is not all about me, I am just an example of somebody with a low income - below a livable wage by $1.5 an hour (not that I have always been able to find full time work)
See, what you said is nonsense "millions of people nationwide who are struggling to survive with multiple jobs".
Most people in America live a long ways UP from 'bare survival'. Not that that is a bad thing, but it belies the "struggling to survive" hyperbole.
I came into this discussion because of a curmudgeon who wanted to berate business owners who cannot afford to pay employees $37 an hour plus benefits or something. Having owned a small business for many years, I have experienced the joys of busting your tail for much less than you would take from somebody else. Maybe they are struggling for their business to survive.
Seems to me that a person with an $8 an hour job is about $320 a week better off than somebody with no job. If you want every business that cannot afford to pay a supposed "livable wage" to close its doors, that is gonna put a whole bunch of people out of work, and zero dollars a week makes for a tough living.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)Your choice to live as a peon gives you no authority to require others to scrape by in poverty simply because your business hasn't done better.
If a business can't afford to pay a livable wage, then it isn't a business. It's a slave racket.
hunter
(38,313 posts)... but as employers they can be just as nasty, even nastier, than the big boys.
Those who abuse their employees by not paying a living wage (or worse, ignoring safety regulations) deserve no special protections, and ought not be in business.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)That put small mom & pops out of business because their business model allows for them to undercut supply prices are bad, but wage requirements that put small mom & pops out of business are good?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)This line of putting you out of business is nonsense.
If everyone's cost goes up your pricing structure will reflect that cost the same as it would if the cost of widgets went up. The cost is always passed on to the consumer. if minimum wage goes up and your pricing structure doesn't reflect that added cost then you aren't much of a business person and you weren't going to make it in the end anyway.
The idea that labor costs should stay low so you can stay in business is ludicrous.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)I'm simply pointing out that we decry small local businesses that get run out of business when an organization like WM moves into the area, but don't seem to give a rats ass if their labor costs increase to the point where they're forced to shutter their business and locals have no where to go for similar product.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Again if the cost goes up for everyone then there is no reason for you to be run out of business as you, like everyone else will raise prices to absorb the cost.
1939
(1,683 posts)The landscaper is a good example. Suppose he employs three helpers. A minimum wage increase that doubles the cost of his employees would require him to raise his prices on the order of somewhere like 40-60%. A lot of his customers would say "sorry, i'll cut my own lawn. Ditto pool services and many others where the customer has alternatives. My wife does her own nails, not because we can't afford a visit to a nail shop, but just because it gripes her to pay that much money. How many other people would do without a service that they could do themselves if the price of the service becomes (by their reckoning) excessive?
All businesses do not have the option of passing through a price increase to the consumer.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Bringing the average up to $15 would be negligible. It would cost the owner an extra $9.96 an hour. So it'll cost you $54 instead of $50 a week to get your lawn mowed.
There is no BLS data specifically on pool cleaning, however I did find an ad...
http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Spartan-Pools/jobs/Swimming-Pool-Cleaner-Service-Technician-3c22e5307c3127f7?q=Pool+Cleaner
and
http://www.indeed.com/cmp/Austin-Pool-and-Spa-LLC/jobs/Pool-Cleaner-a392e33cf0a3bfd0?q=Pool+Cleaner
Looks like it would have little effect on the pool cleaning industry.
Delmette
(522 posts)My son had to fight a local hardware store for his last week's wages.
His next job was with a small construction company. That guy deducted state and federal income taxes but never reported or paid the withholding to the state or the IRS. My son had a difficult time filing his tax return and found out what the owner had done. Since he had only two employees it wasn-'t worth the effort for the state or the IRS to pursue legal action. WTF!
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Let's get a little perspective here. Of course, back then, jobs included building new homes for working people. Now, working people are rent slaves to the people who got Republican tax cuts for being richer than everyone else.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)of skill is needed for that -
the op
eniwetok (231 posts)
Let's pay 16 year olds $31.2k to sweep floors!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027741768
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Well, you have to be able to use a broom (I know adults who don't).
You probably have to know where everything is. If you are cleaning, you might be using dangerous or toxic chemicals you should know about.
If it's a big place, you may have equipment to operate and maintain....
There is no such thing as an "unskilled" job. That is why some may be better at sweeping floors than others.
But go ahead... Look down on those who clean up your messes and do the jobs you think are above you, but essential.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)IMO somebody digging ditches, cleaning rooms or doing heavy work is MORE deserving of a higher wage than somebody doing telemarketing and setting at a computer.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It's how many people are able, willing and available to do it, coupled with how many people are needed to do it. No matter what the actual job is.
Aristus
(66,377 posts)Who used to be able to work in manufacturing for significantly higher wages, until the corporate titans voluntarily gave away all of our manufacturing capacity to China. So they definitely should be paid a legally-enforceable living wage.
The practical upshot of this is that, if a teenager has to work an unskilled, minimum-wage job, the living wage law will ensure that the work he/she does is not tantamount to slavery.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)much more of Americas consumer products.
Mexico's Government doesn't seem to even mind their own 'lowest class' citizens are exploited by 'Foreign' Corps.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It puts this wage in perspective.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That seems at least to me pretty obvious.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)But if they are both doing the same kind of work, their hourly rate should be the same.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Am I missing something obvious? Someone who worked for 8 hours should fairly make twice what someone doing the same thing for 4 hours makes, right?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)They should make the same per hour, in general. So twice as many hours means twice as big a paycheck. Again, speaking in general.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)40 hours for minors is going back to the sweatshops
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Some draw the cut-off at 18, some at 16, and some at 14.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)labor laws allow or not. And I think "Farm" work is exempt, kids can work all day/night on the family owned 'farm'.
I'd pay a kid $15 an hour to sweep floors but not an 8 hour day and they better do an excellent job. However my insurance doesn't cover 'workers' under 18. I'd really prefer to hire an adult anyway for routine 'work'.
IMO, over time an adult tends to be more stable, reliable and need less supervising. If you pay some people by the hour they tend to drag out the work to get more hours.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)jeez
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)*and some adults.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)Not to mention the lists of prohibited occupations in NY.
http://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/stprhboc.shtm
And the federal ones.
http://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/fedproc.shtm
Someone didn't think their argument through.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Foreign Visa workers too, it should not be legal for a visa business to charge a fee to a foreigner or a percentage of their pay to 'work in America'.
Also shouldn't be legal for a prison to 'lease' for example Fire Fighter crews to some state where the state pays $20 an hour to the prison and the prison pays 'slaves' almost nothing or a comp day.
I doubt any business would hire children, visa workers or prisoners if they couldn't legally get 'workers' so cheap.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)But in every instance its the employer who has to pay the fee, not the employee.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)will not raise our Federal minimum wage today.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)Because the last one I did in 2015 cost my client over 6k and the individual wasn't selected in the lottery and had to go back to her home country.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)I'm referring to this -
"Foreign Visa workers too, it should not be legal for a visa business to charge a fee to a foreigner or a percentage of their pay to 'work in America'."
Can you point out where its legal for a business to charge a fee to a foreigner to 'work in America'?
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)It is not legal for a business to charge a Visa applicant any portion of the fees associated with the application process or reduce their wages to cover the costs.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)work, work at Corporate sized 'farms', factories.
There are companies based in the foreign countries who put together these work crews and some do charge fees to people to get into the crew. They aren't charging the fees on Americas paperwork for visa applications.
R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)N/T
thesquanderer
(11,989 posts)...he can fire the person and hire someone who will do a better job.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)H2O Man
(73,537 posts)An honest wage for an honest day's work.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)is that people seem to think it's reasonable for a business model to depend on others having to support the living costs of their employees. And that doesn't matter whether it's tax payers picking up the bill for food stamps or other aid programs, or whether the business model depends on hiring people whose expenses are paid by other family members (teens who live with parents).
It's unethical.
This used to be the logic behind paying women less, too. When my mom started working, she had less pay and lost her scholarship because she got married - and married women didn't need to support themselves, that's what their husbands were for. 
DetroitSocialist83
(169 posts)At 17. I finished high school and worked my ass off. Sure would have changed my circumstances to have a living wage.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am sorry to hear that. I know it happens but it is unfathomable to me how parents do that.
My parents kicked me out at 16 for being irresponsible. I didn't really get that either and now that I am the age they were when they did it with kids of my own I find what they did completely unforgivable. At least I was kicked out for my behavior not for what I was, on some level I can justify that to myself. I can't imagine how hard it must have been to be kicked out for being yourself.
I am sorry you had to deal with that. Glad you made it through.
Visionary
(54 posts)While I believe in the message here, we need need to look at the reality. In reality the 16 year old HS dropout would just end up unemployed because nobody is gonna pay a dropout $15 per hour. A lower wage at least lets people like this work and get their foot in the door. Min wage should be around $11 per hour IMO. That's the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Or decide that they'll hire an older person on a higher wage to do a job that a 16 year old could do? These are jobs that need doing, and deserve to be paid at a living rate.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)That way, everyone is in the same boat.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)compared to mom-and-pop businesses that mostly use actual employees.
Also, companies that outsource more things overseas will gain a comparative advantage.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)The people at the bottom need to be paid more. It's not cheap to live in this country, and suppliers of food/shelter/clothing/medical care/etc are not going to lower their prices any time soon.
I'm really not OK with American workers being tied to what people in Bangladesh make.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A massive boom in automation, self-checkouts, fast-food kiosks and so on. More companies with an Amazon-like business model where everything possible is automated or outsourced abroad. Fewer downtown businesses that depend on humans to get things done. More skilled jobs installing and maintaining the automation technology, and fewer unskilled jobs as more and more of these are automated away.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Businesses have no choice but to automate if the minimum wage is raised even to correct for inflation.
We will have to be robotics experts, which requires years of expensive training and credentials out the yin-yang to compete with the people who are already there now. Or go back and re-live the expensive college experience . . . again . . . until we're in a career that isn't offshoreable or prone to being replaced by a robot.
Automation is going to take over not only blue collar work, but white collar work as well.
Even if you were in favor of a Guaranteed Minimum Income, there's no way in hell it's going to be enacted even if America is in supreme need of it (never mind how it's going to get paid for if there's no revenue coming in and everyone's on a continued dole).
. . . . . I'm . . . failing to see how Capitalism continues if we have millions of workers, former or current, with no disposable income.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If the cost of human labor suddenly increases significantly, the benefits of automation are likely to become compelling. And once one business automates, its competitors will likely be forced to do the same thing if they want to stay in business.
As for white-collar work, I think this is more likely to be outsourced abroad than automated away.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Multiply that by thousands of businesses and we have an enormous problem on our hands. Taxes have nothing to do with why a business will go bad, the lack of customers with disposable income (i.e. workers) does.
I'm guessing they must have a plan that doesn't include that pesky "hiring an entity that has the capability of spending money" proviso or that trifling "additional business" thing.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)from being employed, the wider implications of this certainly need to be considered.
This could explain why President Obama has never advocated a $15 minimum wage.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)Orrex
(63,212 posts)No matter what it is, no matter how slight, no matter how well justified, no matter how urgently needed, business has always cried that the change will kill them.
Unions, 40-hour work week, no child labor, heath coverage, paid vacation, workplace safety, maternity leave, worker compensation, unemployment insurance, wage increases, all of it.
In every single case, businesses have claimed that the change will destroy the economy, or that it must be implemented incrementally, or they must receive concessions in exchange, etc.
Bullshit, all of it.
And your argument about the 16 year old dropout is foolish, because the same claim would be made about an 18 year old high school graduate, or a 24 year old single mother, or a 30 year old trade worker supporting a family of four. Businesses have a long list of reasons why this or that worker's labor should be devalued, and every one of those reasons is bullshit.
Anyone who claims that the minimum wage is high enough should be required to live on it for a year.
Bullshit. All of it.
Kali
(55,008 posts)
It's like the last hundred years of labor reform never happened.
Worse, it's like some of the people who benefit from those reforms seem curiously eager to apologize and atone for them.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)As one of those 'child laborers' that one summer worked 77 hrs a week for Texaco for $1/hr.
Got a $77 paycheck for the effort. I was 15.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)standing, loading, cleaning. You can't do those jobs and have much left for a 2nd job.
Hard work deserves a living wage.
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts)Still not clear on why this is a debate, why is this such an issue of what a person gets paid regardless of their age. To me it sounds like someone is advocating for the rich to get richer and the average Joe can just suck it up, who thinks that way other than rich people? Are there paid plants on this board try to get people to co-sign this madness? IMO you should pay a living wage, and stop with unskilled worker madness, if the owners don’t want to pay than don’t hire them and do the work your dam self, greedy bastards.
glowing
(12,233 posts)That kid is only going to be sweeping up maybe 2hrs after school in the minimum. Most kids who are hired at, say a mechanic shop, are those who are in a tech program at school and are coming in with the latest knowledge of shop/ mechanic work or are a family friend anyway. So you pay them to come in for 2 or 3 hrs. If you didn't have the extra money to take on a part-time person, you wouldn't bother. BTW, most mechanics make a decent wage, they certainly charge $20 - $30/ hr toward the car owner and pad the price of parts. Perhaps this analogy isn't the best example?
2nd of all, if min wage is $15/ hr, other jobs are going to have to change their pay structure. The current bills that have cropped up adjust this period over a number of years. NYC has until 2018 to pay the workers $15/ hr. There are incremental thresholds to apply to the jobs. A worker making $30,000, minus the taxes, etc is still not a lot of money; especially in an expensive city. How many single moms can afford a 2bedroom apt on that alone in an expensive city? But hey, it's better than $8/ hr, so everything helps.
Once these adjustments transpire over the years, businesses should begin to see a return on the investment in paying their employees. Ford had to pay his workers enough to buy the products they were making enmasse, or the factory line job wouldn't be a successful business model.
Personally, the whole consumer based economy is something that just doesn't work for these modern times. We have 7billion people in this world. Could u imagine if they all consumed like the Western world? Basing economic models on consuming infinite amounts or resources is a fallacy. At somepoint we may have need to change methods of paying into a govt, and having the govt instead supplement outwards the basic necessities of a quality life, with "jobs" being able to assist in more? I don't really know? But capitalism is just a horrific model to continue on. Maybe appreciating jobs that teach, research, conserve, protect the environment, etc will be an appreciated paying job? An artist, musician, actor (not the already lucky Hollywood elite) will be paid for their intrinsic beauty? Perhaps parents will be paid for raising their children with time, love, and patience? Or children taking care of their senior relatives will be paid? Perhaps the idea of wealth will change? Or what it means to be wealthy? Could you imagine if wealth was figured on a quality of life and happiness scale? I'm not a philosopher or an economist with an idealic thought process in how it could apply to 7billion people? But it's something that needs to go hand in hand with being able to protect the environment and meeting people's needs as human rights, along with humans nature to want to compete and want to progress technologically across all fields of interest.
It certainly begins with allowing kids with fortitude and brain power the ability to learn without racking up huge amounts of debt. It begins with allowing them access to capital to try new ventures, projects, and research. It begins with getting old, wealthy powerful interests out of the way to allow these other avenues of pursuit and life happiness. It's more than past time to allow the dreams to become reality.
It sounds like a life is like to reincarnate into the future. The way we are headed now, isn't looking all that grand.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)$15 an hour in San Francisco or Manhattan is no big deal at all. Rural MS or rural FL ? Yes, a much bigger deal. 5 year phase-in time seems fair to me. It gives businesses time to look at their finances and adjust prices accordingly and slowly.
LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)... The amount I was making was the equivalent of $18,175.90 in 2016 dollars. That compares with the $15,080 a minimum wage worker earns today (each is based on working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks).
In 1968, when the buying power of the minimum wage was at its peak, a minimum wage worker made the equivalent of $22,672, or about $10.90 per hour.
At the very least, we should restore minimum wage workers to the buying power they had in 1968.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)He did mandate in 10.10 minimum wage for some Federal workers and for federal contractors to pay anyone they hire to 'work' contracts.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)1968 wasn't an island of perfection that we should strive to emulate.
Let's use a reasonable method based on the cost of living TODAY. Not the old "in my day we got $xx.xx and we loved it.".
7962
(11,841 posts)As opposed to today
Picking any other year would mean picking lower buying power.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Instead of looking back almost 50 years, we should look at the minimum wage that makes sense today.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)A minimum wage of $4.25 per hour applies to young workers under the age of 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to workers with disabilities, full-time students, and student-learners employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates. These programs are not limited to the employment of young workers.
The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. Other persons, such as guards, janitors, and maintenance employees who perform duties which are closely related and directly essential to such interstate activities are also covered by the FLSA. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.
The FLSA contains a number of exemptions from the minimum wage that may apply to some workers.
The Wage and Hour Division has a Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act that explains how the law applies. Call 1-866-4-USWAGE (1-866-487-9243) for a printed copy of the guide.
The Full-time Student Program is for full-time students employed in retail or service stores, agriculture, or colleges and universities. The employer that hires students can obtain a certificate from the Department of Labor which allows the student to be paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage. The certificate also limits the hours that the student may work to 8 hours in a day and no more than 20 hours a week when school is in session and 40 hours when school is out, and requires the employer to follow all child labor laws. Once students graduate or leave school for good, they must be paid $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.
There are some limitations on the use of the full-time student program. For information on the limitations or to obtain a certificate, contact the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour National Certification Team at 230 South Dearborn Street, Room 514, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone: 312-596-7195.
What minimum wage exceptions apply to student learners?
This program is for high school students at least 16 years old who are enrolled in vocational education (shop courses). The employer that hires the student can obtain a certificate from the Department of Labor which allows the student to be paid not less than 75% of the minimum wage, for as long as the student is enrolled in the vocational education program.
Employers interested in applying for a student learner certificate should contact the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour National Certification Team at 230 South Dearborn Street, Room 514, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone: 312-596-7195.
Other programs that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage apply to disabled workers and full-time students employed pursuant to sub-minimum wage certificates.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in the coming years. We already have that minimum wage in the City of Los Angeles. It is being phased in over a period of years.
Very hard to live in Los Angeles on less than that. The rents are too high to permit it.
See my post 111. (I think it is 111.)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)minimum wage is just about 16 year old people is to wonder what world they live in? My granddaughter in law has worked minimum wage jobs for most of her working life until this year when she is getting about $11 an hour working at at group home for people who have brain damage. She works nights so that she and her husband can be at home for the children.
I also see a lot of elderly people working at low income jobs.
And who says that 16 year old is not saving money so he/she can go to college?
steve2470
(37,457 posts)
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)My point I am 52 years old, I make slightly north of $15 per hour but it took me 20 years to reach this level of pay and I do have knowledge and technical skills that the 16 year old doesn't is that fair to start him out at my pay scale? or are you assuming that all wages will absolutely increase because of the new minimum?
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)Without unions we've gotten very comfortable dictatorially stating what we think the value of other people's labor is worth. I support $15 because that's what the worker's are fighting for, and as I set the price for my work, I think they should set the price for their work. I support unions, so they can negotiate with their employers, themselves, and we can all stop armchair economizing on their worth.
I read really derogatory remarks about labor all the time on this site, names like burger-flipper and broom pusher, which is dehumanizing and minimizing. People work as cooks, they must cook all kinds of things and work very quickly, on their feet all day, and then they clean up and restock and break down boxes and remove trash, clean restrooms, handling cash, credit cards, using a POS system, among other things. Custodial work is as important as medical work for public health and hygiene, and it's derided as "unskilled" labor all the time. Even using that word "unskilled" is insulting. These are demanding jobs. I don't believe there are jobs that take no skills.
Then they want to carve out lower wages for sixteen-year-olds, or drop-outs, or someone with damaged cuticles, or on and on! They have tons of excuses for not paying people a moral wage. They think people from "poor towns" should get lower wages. Do you know why there are poor towns? Why they have expensive medical problems, drug addiction, untreated sickness, slummy houses, homelessness, bad diets, high crime rates, crumbling schools and infrastructure from eroding tax bases? It's because when you pay people less than they need to live on, it unwinds an endless skein of misery and high-cost problems on everybody. And many here want to volunteer all of us to take on these socio-economic problems so businesses have a steady supply of cheap labor? When did that become the primary objective here? A federal minimum wage is necessary. Anything less will just perpetuate the problems of wage stagnation, which even economists are urging the country to do something about.
There is just a really ugly, patronizing tone in all of these minimum wage debates, and I don't want it to go unrecognized. I want to call it out. It's as elitist and classist as anything I've read in any comments section.
Kali
(55,008 posts)you nailed it 
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)16 or 65, if you're working, you deserve a living wage.
I live in a rural area, and it gets so tiresome to read how people in my area don't need 15/hr. More especially from people who have no fucking clue what the economy/transportation/jobs/prices is/are like where I live. 15/hr is a start, but it is by no means a wage that would cause anyone in my area to be living large.
A lot of people claim to care about poor people until it comes to paying them a living wage, then suddenly people want to be the judge on how the poor should live and what (always lower) wage would be good enough for them.
If you're a college graduate and making less than 15/hr, it's not the fault of the person supporting their family by working at the local Burger King. That BK worker needs a living wage. Looking for someone to blame? Blame those who deny people a living wage, blame those who think Americans ought to work themselves to death and be grateful for the opportunity, blame government, blame the corporations for caring more about their profits - don't blame the low-skilled worker that deserves to earn a living wage.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)So many here are worried about "how will businesses survive?!" when they should be asking "how will people survive?" And they should have started asking it about 30 years ago.
Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)Your claim is ridiculous. People with college degrees and years of experience shouldn't be paid less than a high school dropout that sweeps floors.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)you should be paid more, but that's not the problem of those who are fighting for a living wage. If you should be paid more, take it up with your employer.
Orrex
(63,212 posts)It is not an argument for why he should make less.
You have two options:
1. Tell your employer that you're so precious and valuable that you deserve more than the minimum wage. If they agree, they'll give you a raise. Otherwise, maybe you're not worth more than the minimum.
2. Quit the job that doesn't appreciate your specialness and take one of those easy, uneducated jobs instead. Then you can live in $15/hour luxury just like all of those well-heeled peons whose labor you devalue.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)a garbage man should be paid more than you
would you like to work in garbage all day?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If so, then yes most likely a full-time individual performing janitorial services is probably going to make more money.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)but how did you get so close? I don't think I've ever posted about music here.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Was also in a few pretty good bands. But a degree in music theory is fantastic for either being a professor of music, or a waiter.
I dropped out of college, and never looked back. I focused on my music career for a few years. Problem was music sharing. It's cool if you're in a really big band. Half the country of Brazil downloads your album, you just hop in your own jetliner and do a free show in Rio, and it's all cool. For a struggling band it kills it. Yeah we are awesome, check it out, that lady has one of our song lyrics tattooed under her breasts! How many CD's did we sell? 7? WTF?
So I got tired of ramen (it is so fucking punk though), and moved on. I couldn't live on the $200 a week I made performing music. So I became a bartender while learning other skills. Now, 22 years later I have a great business, with a great salary, and refuse to hire under $17 an hour regardless of skill. Hunger. Real hunger. The kind of hunger you get after not eating for more than a week, teaches many lessons. When I hear someone say they are "starving" while in line at a Chipotle makes me laugh. They don't understand starvation.
No one I hire, will ever, ever know hunger. That's the foundation of my business model.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)No working papers, old enough to drive on a full license, old enough to join the military.
Too old to be protected by child labor laws and child neglect laws.
Old enough to be worried about college bills, rent, food, car maintenance.
Old enough for parents to legally require him/her to move out or contribute $ without any legal repercussions on the part of the parents.
$12 rural
$15 urban
Is what I have come to see as a realistic minimum for that age.
In semi-retirement I do job coaching for that age group.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)which is already worse than the national average poverty rate be codified into law by the minimum wage? Then you need to start from scratch with a different tactic to alleviate poverty in rural areas when a national minimum wage would already do that
People here have some weird ideas about rural American being some kind of shangri-la of low costs, it's not. People in rural areas have to travel farther for work and groceries and there are little options for public transportation. Getting sick is just as expensive, and so is college.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)That some rural employers could afford $15.
A Walmart should be able to, they sell the same crap at the same prices as in the city.
Larger chain businesses such as grocery stores, same.
As a matter of fact, some large businesses specifically take advantage of rural locations to pay less. In my area, a large rural health care monopoly pays less (all the way up to the doctors) but charges medicare and insurance the same.
Again, agreed.
But for small, rural businesses, such as farms and businesses in small villages, they are on the list of victims of a lousy economy, not the cause of it. Coming form that far behind would break them.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)and our school district has gone to all free lunches for everyone because nearly all the children would qualify for free lunches. They collect backpacks full of food to send home with children on holidays and in summer send them home with lists of charities that provide free meals for children under 18. It is heart-breaking. A lot of their parents are in trouble, very sick, self-medicating, and sometimes in prison. They don't have computer access at home, and home is sometimes with different relatives from week to week. Many of the children have bad diets and are already getting obesity related illnesses. Kids around here are sick all the time. I think getting these people some stability is pretty important, and there is a big difference between 12 and 15 for these families.
The economy is not lousy. The farms in our area are actually quite profitable, and have their own stores. We buy our meat at a farm store and it is very popular and does brisk business. Recreational hay-mazes and wedding-venue type farms have opened and are thriving, but they don't employ many people, and the people they use are mostly family. It is the larger employers, like you said, that should pay more. They employ the most people. There has been a recovery and a lot of people have been left out.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)....we have a factory nearby that is on the verge of leaving, taking over a hundred jobs with it.
It would devastate an already hurting small town.
The reason is NY state taxes, not wages.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Whee I live i pay 650 for a 1500 sq ft home in a decent area. 100 miles up the road this house would go for about 1000 a month.
Cost of living IS lower by quite a bit in rural areas regardless of the other outside costs.
You make 15.00 the required wage in a small county and you end up with either no businesses or only ones run by family members
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)...near Ithaca, but not close enough to be part of the college town economy.
He pays 400-something a month. Decent, clean place.
In NYC that apartment would be several thousand a month.
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)I'll say the same to you that I just said above. I live in a rural area. Our school district has gone to all free lunches for everyone because nearly all the children would qualify for free lunches. They collect backpacks full of food to send home with children on holidays and in summer send them home with lists of charities that provide free meals for children under 18. It is heart-breaking. A lot of their parents are in trouble, very sick, self-medicating, and sometimes in prison. They don't have computer access at home, and home is sometimes with different relatives from week to week. Many of the children have bad diets and are already getting obesity related illnesses. Kids around here are sick all the time. I think getting these people some stability is pretty important, and there is a big difference between 12 and 15 for these families.
House rentals, even very shabby houses, are between $700 -$900.
The farms in our area are actually quite profitable, and have their own stores. We buy our meat at a farm store and it is very popular and does brisk business. Recreational hay-mazes and wedding-venue type farms have opened and are thriving, but they don't employ many people, and the people they use are mostly family, and they probably pay more than 15 already. It's the larger employers, like Walmart, McDonald's and Yum Brand stores that are paying the lowest wages, and they employ the most people. There has been a recovery and a lot of people have been left out.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)BTW I live in a rural area, my sympathies lie with rural folks.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)that explains why rural workers are not as worthy.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)Is not what I said.
There are small family farms and small businesses in impoverished villages in which the increase would be unaffordable.
These people are on the same short end of the economic stick as their employees.
In rural areas, you also have large numbers of people who would not benefit from a minimum wage increase.
For instance, the family business that collects household refuse in my area only hires family members and pays them whatever the business can afford, which is not much. Same with the local deli. Same for people that fix roofs, watch other people's kids, etc.
Rising the speed limit on an aging, crumbling railroad is going to cause derailments, not get people to their destination faster.
In New York, the numbers I gave are from Governor Cuomo's current proposal for raising the minimum.
It has broad general consensus and seems fair.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)I live in a rural area too. Those small family farms you speak of (in my part of the mid-west) are doing just fine. With all the crop and land subsidies they are getting from us tax payers, trust me, they can afford to pay a higher wage!
Check out this database and see for yourself want your neighbors small family farm are bringing in from us taxpayers.
https://farm.ewg.org/
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)I don't think we should even be discussing teenagers working...
See my post below.
They should be in school or the military, preparing for careers, not shit jobs.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)I noticed.
But it's not the world we need to change, it's the culture.
My parents got free college degrees from the City University of New York (1950s)
My mom made .75 (yes that's seventy five cents!) per hour working in the college library to pay for subway tokens and books.
My tuition, if I can remember correctly, was around $1,200 per year. I paid for my own car and split the college bills with my parents.
My first summer job during college paid $3.50 an hour. I paid for my car, books, and part of the tuition.
Today, a year at a State University (living at home) costs $12,000 per year.
Therefore I think that college-age young people should be making $35.00 per hour.
Or.... make college cheaper, and what they make would not loom as large as it does.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Why shouldn't our kids make that much?
scioto99
(71 posts)I am trying to imagine a situation in which a high school kid *has to* work forty hours a week.
A homeless kid? She should be in a good shelter or foster care, and should be going to school to develop a decent future.
An exploited sex slave? Should be offered rescue and foster care or a group home - and school as well.
A kid in juvy? Seems obvious they should be offered school, not just slave-work.
The child of migrant farm-workers? School, school, school.
There are lots of abusive parents who would be happy to yank their kids out of school and make them earn rent money instead. Given the cultural patchwork of America, there are also non-intentionally-abusive parents who simply think it's normal to say to the dumbest kid in the family, "drop out and earn money so your smart little brother can go to college" or to the daughter, "girls' education doesn't matter - go be a maid so we can send your brother to med school."
Can of worms, IMO.
mountain grammy
(26,621 posts)or $31K/year for a full time worker. A full time worker should earn enough to be above poverty, no matter what his/her age.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)But you're dealing here with the 'big tent' RW establishment DINO's
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)College tuition at a state school in California:
Tuition and Fees $13,518 $13,518 $13,518 $13,518
Room and Board $14,992* $12,049
Total Direct Costs $28,510 $25,567 $13,518 $13,518
http://financialaid.berkeley.edu/cost-attendance
Explanation of totals $28,510 and an estimated $33,481 if you include fees, books, personal expenses, etc. if you live on-campus in a residence hall (which the parents of a 17- or 18-year old on-campus resident would probably require. I would, and even then . . . . )
$25,567 if you live in on-campus housing (cook for yourself?) $32,004 including fees, books, miscellaneous, transportation
$13,518 if you live in off-campus housing and this means, if you live in off-campus housing (not relatives or friends) $27,870 you include transportation, fees, books, personal expenses and you live in off-campus housing
$23,392 including fees, books, miscellaneous expenses and transportation if you live with family or friends (no rent I presume).
So, a 16-year-old who earns $31,000 per year working a 40-hour week can save for college.
I assume he or she is working 40 hours and finishing high school with grades good enough to get him or her admitted to college.
For most students, it would cost more than $31,000 to go to the University of California at Berkeley for one year -- according to the US Berkeley website.
So, yes. $31,000 for a 16-year-old who works 40 hours a week would be a fair wage believe it or not.
I thank you for posting this, Recursion because it kind of explains why our young people are so enthusiastic about free tuition for state colleges and other schools.
The cost of college is just much too high and the entire burden seems to be placed on the shoulders of our brightest young people.
$31,000 per year is $14.90 per hour. Almost Bernie's $15. And, yes, 16-year-olds need that kind of money if they are to pay for their college education AT A STATE SCHOOL.
Let's don't even think about the tuition that students pay at private schools if they are not on scholarship.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)...or an 18 year old for that matter.
We should be discussing a part-time job that puts some extra money in their pocket while they are...
- Going to a free community college
- Going to a free vocational trade school
- Getting tutoring to pass the ASVAB (military entrance exam)
Sending our teenage children out to work, however theoretical, plays into the hands of those that see our children as resources to be exploited.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to admit and then starting at 9 or 10, babysitting because I was really good with children and very trustworthy.
Then at 14 I got my work permit and worked in day care. I worked summers not during the school year. I learned to take work seriously and I loved to work, but now I am retired.
I have done all kinds, and I mean all kinds of work in my life and ended up after years of doing all kinds of things, in a profession that I loved.
Work can be very rewarding and not just in terms of money. So much depends on the people you work with. Good people make a job more fun.
So working full-time at 16 is not good because it means you are not in school. But theoretically you could save for college if you got paid $15 an hour and worked fewer hours.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)My friend and I went around the neighborhood in Brooklyn with a red wagon and bags of cement and patched sidewalks.
I saved enough money to buy my first car ($600) at age 18.
I never knew what the minimum wage was.
(Oh, and college was about $1,200 a year)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of money. She is good at business though. I think it is great. Business is a talent.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Time for a new job ASAFP... 
ileus
(15,396 posts)
Warpy
(111,261 posts)who can't seem to get it through his thick skull that paying below subsistence wages to teenagers does a few things: first, it drags other wages downward because employers will favor teenagers; second, it contributes to the notion that labor has no intrinsic value; and third, that it chokes off demand for goods and services and makes the economy stall.
Oh, well. I guess Econ 101 is still managing to propagandize even young Democrats and recovering Republicans to favor profit over the real wealth creation done by labor.
CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)When introduced, in the 1950s, the minimum wage was NEVER meant to be a number at which a family had to budget around.
It was for high school and college students, getting free tuition, to purchase books and subway tokens.
My mom made seventy five cents an hour at age 21 while attending Brooklyn College - which was free at the time.
Seventy five cents was decent money for a college kid living at home. A nice house cost a few thousand dollars.
Today...
People with college degrees should not be sweating 'if they raise the minimum, I will be making less than that.'
People with families to support should not even have to know what the minimum wage is, because it should be an irrelevant number.
I have sent students out into the world (I do job coaching part time now) to jobs that pay 10, 12, 15 an hour.
I consider that a failure on my part.
I have actually coached students who have middle class families and no financial pressure to take a volunteer job/unpaid internship at a place that will develop good contacts rather than work at an exploitative job for that much.
I send students out into the world to union jobs. By the end of a five year apprenticeship, they are making close to 80K/year.
The percentage of workers in unions has fallen by half in my lifetime.
Union jobs are the highest quality jobs in any given industry, union workers are the highest quality workers in any given industry.
Good pay, good benefits, good retirement, job security.
We should be preparing our young people for high quality jobs by providing free high quality training.
Not coercing exploitative multinational corporations to pay a little more for low skill work.
Arguing about paying for college or supporting a family on a minimum wage job is like two starving dogs fighting for a bone that no longer has any meat on it.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Who's leading the charge against a minimum wage increase today? The restaurant industry, which includes such fast-food mega-companies as McDonald's and Yum Brands (owner of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut), both of which are earning higher profits now than before the recession.
The most common objection to a higher minimum wage always has been that it leads to lower employment. This is one of those "everybody knows" talking points, and it does have a strong intuitive appeal. Stands to reason, doesn't it? Require business owners to spend more on each employee, and of course they're going to spread it among fewer people.
As it happens, the employment effect of the minimum wage is "one of the most studied topics in all of economics," observes economist John Schmitt. So it's curious that, despite decades of searching, economists have failed to document consistently any such phenomenon.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/28/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130630
Guess who's against raising the minimum wage ? The Cato Institute
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Shouldn't anyone who works forty hours a week make enough to live on no matter their age, skill level, or any other factor? And if the parent or parents of this hypothetical 16 year old made enough to support the family, the 16 year old might be able to concentrate on their school work.
If the situation is such that another worker is needed to support the family, that worker should make the same as any other person doing the same work, no matter if they are 16 years old or 60 years old.
I grew going to school with kids whose parents were migrant workers, picking fruit and vegetables. Back in the 1960s many of them didn't earn minimum wage - that is why CBS produced "Harvest of Shame" which blew open the abuses of migrant workers. All of the children of those workers dropped out of school around seventh grade so they could go to work in the fields - they made the same pittance a day as their parents:
On the other hand I know adults who have worked minimum wage jobs most of their lives. One couple I know have both had chronic health conditions their entire lives. They are both hard working and intelligent with college degrees. As soon as they would start to get ahead a health crisis would interrupt their careers and leave them deep in debt for medical expenses. After that showed up on their applications a few times, they were eliminated from getting the jobs they were truly qualified for and they finally just gave up and got whatever minimum wages positions they could.
Some of the employers who paid less were more understanding of their health issues and would put them back to work as soon as they were able. Often the only thing that kept food on the table and the rent and utilities paid was the minimum wage job their daughter worked while she attended high school and college.
Some of the people who post these hypothetical questions have no clue how people at the economic bottom of our society live. They don't know how some families and individuals have to struggle to survive. And from what I read they don't care.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I loved your post. +1
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Solly Mack
(90,767 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Not because I had to work.
Although if a person could get a $15 an hour job sweeping floors (I always love how MY job is used as an example of the worst, least skilled job) That would seem to be a fairly large incentive to NOT finish high school and also to NOT goto college.
I have a Master's degree. My majors were math (BA) and economics (MA).
I have worked for the last 14 years sweeping floors, although I prefer to focus on the toilets. I am like the McDonalds of toilets - over 25,000 cleaned. Truly, a life of accomplishments.
Before that I was a factory temp., and before that, a part time janitor.
meaculpa2011
(918 posts)because my father lost his job and my mother was pregnant.
It was no picnic, especially at $1.15 an hour. And when school started I still had to work 25 hours a week to kick in to the family treasury. I used to give my pay envelope to my mother and she gave me a $10 a week allowance.
I would much rather have been playing baseball.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Not working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.
I can't believe this is actually a subject for debate.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)Now, however, the RWNJs are asking: 'why should burger flippers get more $$ than the army guys?'
I mean, how in the hell can ANYONE ask this question, with a straight face?
So, Limbiciles thinks civilians should suffer low wages because the Rs in congress won't pay service members a living wage either...
Got it?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Most people working minimum wage jobs now are ADULTS, not teenagers. People who push this BS about "teenagers making $15/hr" seem to be well-off and out of touch middle class Boomers and Gen-Xers who seem to be mentally stuck in the past when those jobs were mainly held by middle class teenagers wanting spending money.
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)A 16 yr old working full time just for the summer, could almost have enough for tuition and books for a year of college. So what would be wrong with that?
