I am so weary of explaining this to people who refuse to understand. I hope this forum of those who respect the historical perspective provided by dear Dr. Richardson will be more receptive.
It is important to understand the discriminatory nature of refusing to raise the minimum wage to a living wage standard. According to the Economic …
I am so weary of explaining this to people who refuse to understand. I hope this forum of those who respect the historical perspective provided by dear Dr. Richardson will be more receptive.
It is important to understand the discriminatory nature of refusing to raise the minimum wage to a living wage standard. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) a non-partisan research organization, the majority of minimum wage workers are women and people of color. Right now, 59% of workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage are women, with nearly one in four of these women being Latina or Black. African Americans make up 31% of the workforce that would benefit from a minimum wage increase and Latinos make up 26%, reports EPI.
Depriving these workers of a living wage is one more racist and misogynistic policy of Republicans. Everyone should understand how discriminatory and unfair this Republican position is. Do not be blind to this.
Those who oppose a raise of the minimum wage to a living wage standard do so only because of a desire to exploit poverty and the labor of those less fortunate and those they wish to discriminate unjustly against. This is unjust, inequitable, and evil.
A careful observation of Republican policies reveals they believe that to incent the wealthy you should give them more money but to incent the less wealthy you take money away from them. Tax breaks for the rich to incent them to create jobs and invest in our economy, but repress wages and reduce unemployment benefits to incent the poor to work for substandard wages. Is there truly anyone who does not see the inequity, unfairness, and evil in this philosophy? If you vote for this you join in their conspiracy against humanity and decency.
Let us not pretend that there is anything beyond racist and misogynistic motivations for the suppression of wages below a living wage standard. Those who support this need to understand they are in the minority. Do not let them forget it. Vote like your own welfare and that of your family and neighbors depends on it. They do!
Continuing to suppress wages below a living wage standard is simply the 21st century equivalent of chattel slavery. Those who support exploiting the labor of others without paying them a fair value for their labor are exploiting the labors of others just as those who supported slavery. Do not let them tell you otherwise.
Businesses always feel a relentless urge to reduce overhead costs, and include labor in those costs. Thus a constant incentive to underpay wages, salaries and benefits. The law regulates some elements of overhead costs: if there's shoddy materials, poor craft work or negligence, several parties may be liable. Why not uphold labor's wage rights at least as strongly? Currently there's a minimum wage -- minimal enough to need a microscope to find it.
$15/hr is essential as an obvious start, but the "Fight for Fifteen" involves many other fronts, such as strict limits on mis-classifying jobs, e.g. salaried and contracted work. Also, crucially, stricter enforcement of all public and consumer protections. I'm 100% behind the Green New Deal as a solution to our woes, but even the GND will rely on thorough regulation and enforcement.
Why a specific dollar amount for the minimum wage? Would it not make more sense to tie the minimum wage to cost of living, a set amount over the poverty rate, inflation, or even prime? A specific dollar amount in relation to a living wage can become obsolete as soon as it’s set, can it not?
My take on one of the arguments against the living wage is that if your business can't be profitable if you're paying your employees a living wage, perhaps you should hire a better manager.
Well said. Too often I have heard minimum wage is for kids; kids don't deserve more. I always thought that if a business is only profitable by low wages - it should fail. I have also wondered beyond prison and child labor, what other 3rd countries have yet to be exploited in the name of profit.
It's not that kids don't deserve more. It's that they are still living at home, being supported in the main by their parents, and do not have, in most cases, adult expenses yet. Their parents are claiming them as dependents on taxes. In many and most cases teenagers do not bring experience or work ethic to their first job. They are learning how to work. As a small business owner I pay a living wage to supervisor level and above. I pay wages above minimum, regardless of age, as to how valuable they make themselves to my business, how badly I want to keep them. I'm more than willing to pay $15 an hour to adults, (even when their work is sub-standard) but I do object to paying a kid living at home that I am "training" a high minimum wage. Believe me, I'm not getting rich off the sweat off their backs. I do not think you can equate it to child labor in third world countries. At what point do employees have to meet a standard to "deserve" a wage?
As to your question on “at what point do employees have to meet a standard to ‘deserve’ a minimum wage,” I suggest the answer is when they show up for work. Are you really suggesting you are in favor of child labor abuse? Shame on you.
Supporting the idea that minors deserve a lower wage as they live at home with their parents ignores the realities of many. This also sounds remarkably similar to the misogynistic argument offered for so many years that women deserved to be paid less as they were not the primary support for the household. These arguments are wrong and unjust. Equal pay for equal work. Taking advantage of the labors of any without paying for fair value is simply another form of chattel slavery. It does not matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, or any other characteristic of the worker - equal pay and a living eage should be the standard and the law.
Are you a business owner? My employees do not do "equal work". Some have more responsibility than others and that is the basis for the pay scale, not race, age, gender, etc, etc.. Just because someone may be capable of the same responsibility or job that another has, I do not need both of them doing the same thing, and one position comes with a higher pay rate. And it just so happens that a lot of teenagers do not yet have the experience to be given the greater responsibility level jobs. So it's misogynistic to pay someone what they are "worth", to pay depending on experience, or DOE? I've hired people who are capable of doing what another is doing, but they aren't doing that thing, so I should pay them more just because they "could" do it? And there are other considerations, such as seniority, commitment, loyalty, seasonality of the work and so forth. Should I pay a youngster who is leaving for college in two months and hasn't even learned the job yet the same as my full time permanent staff? I'm sorry, but I don't think so... My starting wage has always been well above minimum, even for minors, because there is a high cost of living where I reside and I have to pay competitive wages. So, shame on you for trying to shame me. I think I've been pretty fair in my minuscule little corner of the world. There's politics and then there's common sense. Are you willing to pay the 13 YO neighbor kid who wants a job mowing your lawn and doesn't even know how to start the mower yet the same rate you pay an experienced lawn care professional? Of course you just wanna disregard the fact that the 13 year old next door doesn't have to pay any rent yet, because to consider THAT would be misogynistic....
The unfortunate experience of France...and much of Europe...with significant increases to the minimum wage has been an increase in the numbers of people who are paid at that level. The positive "social" decision to do this does nothing for those who were previously paid a little more for slightly more or different responsibilities as yoyu say. The pay scales are effectively crushed like a concertina. The other interesting experience to which you elude is youth unemployment. In France it is found "socially unacceptable to pay the young without any experience and often with poor education as much as the experienced workers. Unemployment of those under 25 in France is around 25%. In Germany there is a 50% minimum wage for beginners under 25 and unemployment in that age group is 5%. With that of course most young germans in such jobs live at home...so what? Getting started in life requires effort and perseverance.
No, actually I am in favor of a $15 minimum wage. In fact where I live that is barely a living wage, and I've paid double that. I've had plenty of people who just "show up" for work: drunk, high, argumentative, even taking naps, going in the bathroom for a half hour to text the boyfriend. Clearly you haven't been in the trenches. Shame right back at ya.
Glad to know you support a living wage. And yes, I am a business owner, in fact several and all my employees, several thousand of them make considerably more than a living wage. We also offer paid internship programs and support work study programs as well. We also have a policy that no executive including the owners of the business make more than 10 times the rate of our lowest paid employees. But that is our choice on how to run our businesses. You are certainly free to run yours in whatever manner you wish.
After saying all of that I still believe in and strongly support a minimum wage standard that assures all a minimum of a living wage. I will leave the issue of indexation for another discussion.
Apparently then you are several magnitudes beyond having any day to day interaction with entry level employees. Well good for you. We don't live in the same universe, with regard to "business". I'm encouraged to hear someone at the top of the corporate ladder wants to do right by the common folks.
There is enough shame to go around and around and around. Bruce, Stuart and Marsha I believe share many of the same, or similar ideas regarding the world and its politics.
Minimum wage is an idea that is difficult to get a handle on. I remember when I was 11 and worked for 50cents an hour. It was my first job and big money as I had little concept of what money meant. As that wage grew with my ever growing experience I began to appreciate money and wages and what they could do with my life and its goals.
At that time I had the support of my family for food, housing, clothing, etc. Later in life that changed to where they needed that same support from me and family had a fuller meaning.
The question of "minimum wage" was there then and it is here now, although it has changed to a "living wage".
We all need to live and we know what it costs in the United States. That is the simple part. It gets tougher when we realize someone has to pay for a "living wage".
As we edge into the 21st century we have begun to realize that "someone" has to have a name and a connection to the power brokers of the country to make these decision.
Our country is wealthy, very wealthy, but it belongs to businesses. We have provided the means and methods to allow the successful business person to accumulate wealth. This is the complicated part.
If you noticed, during part of this pandemic the Federal Government gave millions to the airlines to keep them in existence. This was tax money that was spent....individuals and businesses. There was no public outcry against this and other types of business aid, nor did I expect any.
What we found out once again is that the country did have real wealth and that "someone" had a name....the United States Government as defined by our people and their businesses.. So, what about the minimum or living wage discussion????
If you have noticed, I am sure you have, there is a new child income law that has been passed. President Joe Biden and his Democratic followers decided to bypass the "living wage" discussion. Instead each child with a family whose income is less than a specified amount will receive $300 a month.
The President and his advisors seem to think that ending child poverty is
important and this measure will lessen it by approximately 45%. WOW!
That is a big, big thing!
Perhaps another outcome might be a resolution to the "living wage" discussion that has gone on forever. Is there still a huge need for it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Is this the answer? Hmmmm, maybe, and maybe not.
Just a thought. Good things do happen after DJT and his cronies.
And I am highly offended by the accusation of "child labor abuse". There's politics and then there's common sense, see my comments below. You are one of those people who make me want to reconsider my liberal bent.
I regret you were offended. My intent was not to offend. However, it seems from your comments you do support a living wage standard, at least for some employees.
Sadly, this is not the case for many of my daughter's high school classmates. They are working during the school day at drive thru windows during pandemic. They've opted to remain "virtual' students so they can work. My daughter's best friend is the middle child with 4 younger siblings. Her parents were recently in a car accident. Her parents work at hourly wage jobs. They can't work. So it is up to the teenager to help support her family.
Bruce, this is well put. Power, control and wealth overwhelm those who cannot vote and are second citizens in this nation, or any nation. It is no simpler, nor no more complicated than that.
It’s about capitalism. Unregulated capitalism. Racism is ancillary, a tool for the ultimate aim.Power untrammeled by democracy’s impractical, unwanted bow to regular peoples’ voice. It’s about money and power exploiting racial sentiments or any other exploitable sentiment - guns, sexuality, religion, gender, unions, for its aggrandizement. It’s about protecting unregulated capitalism. Corporations calling the shots. Don’t get side tracked.
I am so weary of explaining this to people who refuse to understand. I hope this forum of those who respect the historical perspective provided by dear Dr. Richardson will be more receptive.
It is important to understand the discriminatory nature of refusing to raise the minimum wage to a living wage standard. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) a non-partisan research organization, the majority of minimum wage workers are women and people of color. Right now, 59% of workers who would benefit from a $15 minimum wage are women, with nearly one in four of these women being Latina or Black. African Americans make up 31% of the workforce that would benefit from a minimum wage increase and Latinos make up 26%, reports EPI.
Depriving these workers of a living wage is one more racist and misogynistic policy of Republicans. Everyone should understand how discriminatory and unfair this Republican position is. Do not be blind to this.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/what-15-minimum-wage-could-mean-for-women-and-the-pay-gap.html
Those who oppose a raise of the minimum wage to a living wage standard do so only because of a desire to exploit poverty and the labor of those less fortunate and those they wish to discriminate unjustly against. This is unjust, inequitable, and evil.
A careful observation of Republican policies reveals they believe that to incent the wealthy you should give them more money but to incent the less wealthy you take money away from them. Tax breaks for the rich to incent them to create jobs and invest in our economy, but repress wages and reduce unemployment benefits to incent the poor to work for substandard wages. Is there truly anyone who does not see the inequity, unfairness, and evil in this philosophy? If you vote for this you join in their conspiracy against humanity and decency.
Let us not pretend that there is anything beyond racist and misogynistic motivations for the suppression of wages below a living wage standard. Those who support this need to understand they are in the minority. Do not let them forget it. Vote like your own welfare and that of your family and neighbors depends on it. They do!
Continuing to suppress wages below a living wage standard is simply the 21st century equivalent of chattel slavery. Those who support exploiting the labor of others without paying them a fair value for their labor are exploiting the labors of others just as those who supported slavery. Do not let them tell you otherwise.
Thank you for your insights, Bruce.
Businesses always feel a relentless urge to reduce overhead costs, and include labor in those costs. Thus a constant incentive to underpay wages, salaries and benefits. The law regulates some elements of overhead costs: if there's shoddy materials, poor craft work or negligence, several parties may be liable. Why not uphold labor's wage rights at least as strongly? Currently there's a minimum wage -- minimal enough to need a microscope to find it.
$15/hr is essential as an obvious start, but the "Fight for Fifteen" involves many other fronts, such as strict limits on mis-classifying jobs, e.g. salaried and contracted work. Also, crucially, stricter enforcement of all public and consumer protections. I'm 100% behind the Green New Deal as a solution to our woes, but even the GND will rely on thorough regulation and enforcement.
Why a specific dollar amount for the minimum wage? Would it not make more sense to tie the minimum wage to cost of living, a set amount over the poverty rate, inflation, or even prime? A specific dollar amount in relation to a living wage can become obsolete as soon as it’s set, can it not?
Agree but let's get started by getting it to $15./hour at least.
My take on one of the arguments against the living wage is that if your business can't be profitable if you're paying your employees a living wage, perhaps you should hire a better manager.
Well said. Too often I have heard minimum wage is for kids; kids don't deserve more. I always thought that if a business is only profitable by low wages - it should fail. I have also wondered beyond prison and child labor, what other 3rd countries have yet to be exploited in the name of profit.
f you or your business does not support a living wage you are not a job creator you are a poverty exploiter.
It's not that kids don't deserve more. It's that they are still living at home, being supported in the main by their parents, and do not have, in most cases, adult expenses yet. Their parents are claiming them as dependents on taxes. In many and most cases teenagers do not bring experience or work ethic to their first job. They are learning how to work. As a small business owner I pay a living wage to supervisor level and above. I pay wages above minimum, regardless of age, as to how valuable they make themselves to my business, how badly I want to keep them. I'm more than willing to pay $15 an hour to adults, (even when their work is sub-standard) but I do object to paying a kid living at home that I am "training" a high minimum wage. Believe me, I'm not getting rich off the sweat off their backs. I do not think you can equate it to child labor in third world countries. At what point do employees have to meet a standard to "deserve" a wage?
Although there is some distortion in 2020 due to the affect of the pandemic, here are the Bureau of Labor statistics on minimum wage workers:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm
As to your question on “at what point do employees have to meet a standard to ‘deserve’ a minimum wage,” I suggest the answer is when they show up for work. Are you really suggesting you are in favor of child labor abuse? Shame on you.
Supporting the idea that minors deserve a lower wage as they live at home with their parents ignores the realities of many. This also sounds remarkably similar to the misogynistic argument offered for so many years that women deserved to be paid less as they were not the primary support for the household. These arguments are wrong and unjust. Equal pay for equal work. Taking advantage of the labors of any without paying for fair value is simply another form of chattel slavery. It does not matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, or any other characteristic of the worker - equal pay and a living eage should be the standard and the law.
Are you a business owner? My employees do not do "equal work". Some have more responsibility than others and that is the basis for the pay scale, not race, age, gender, etc, etc.. Just because someone may be capable of the same responsibility or job that another has, I do not need both of them doing the same thing, and one position comes with a higher pay rate. And it just so happens that a lot of teenagers do not yet have the experience to be given the greater responsibility level jobs. So it's misogynistic to pay someone what they are "worth", to pay depending on experience, or DOE? I've hired people who are capable of doing what another is doing, but they aren't doing that thing, so I should pay them more just because they "could" do it? And there are other considerations, such as seniority, commitment, loyalty, seasonality of the work and so forth. Should I pay a youngster who is leaving for college in two months and hasn't even learned the job yet the same as my full time permanent staff? I'm sorry, but I don't think so... My starting wage has always been well above minimum, even for minors, because there is a high cost of living where I reside and I have to pay competitive wages. So, shame on you for trying to shame me. I think I've been pretty fair in my minuscule little corner of the world. There's politics and then there's common sense. Are you willing to pay the 13 YO neighbor kid who wants a job mowing your lawn and doesn't even know how to start the mower yet the same rate you pay an experienced lawn care professional? Of course you just wanna disregard the fact that the 13 year old next door doesn't have to pay any rent yet, because to consider THAT would be misogynistic....
The unfortunate experience of France...and much of Europe...with significant increases to the minimum wage has been an increase in the numbers of people who are paid at that level. The positive "social" decision to do this does nothing for those who were previously paid a little more for slightly more or different responsibilities as yoyu say. The pay scales are effectively crushed like a concertina. The other interesting experience to which you elude is youth unemployment. In France it is found "socially unacceptable to pay the young without any experience and often with poor education as much as the experienced workers. Unemployment of those under 25 in France is around 25%. In Germany there is a 50% minimum wage for beginners under 25 and unemployment in that age group is 5%. With that of course most young germans in such jobs live at home...so what? Getting started in life requires effort and perseverance.
No, actually I am in favor of a $15 minimum wage. In fact where I live that is barely a living wage, and I've paid double that. I've had plenty of people who just "show up" for work: drunk, high, argumentative, even taking naps, going in the bathroom for a half hour to text the boyfriend. Clearly you haven't been in the trenches. Shame right back at ya.
Glad to know you support a living wage. And yes, I am a business owner, in fact several and all my employees, several thousand of them make considerably more than a living wage. We also offer paid internship programs and support work study programs as well. We also have a policy that no executive including the owners of the business make more than 10 times the rate of our lowest paid employees. But that is our choice on how to run our businesses. You are certainly free to run yours in whatever manner you wish.
After saying all of that I still believe in and strongly support a minimum wage standard that assures all a minimum of a living wage. I will leave the issue of indexation for another discussion.
Apparently then you are several magnitudes beyond having any day to day interaction with entry level employees. Well good for you. We don't live in the same universe, with regard to "business". I'm encouraged to hear someone at the top of the corporate ladder wants to do right by the common folks.
There is enough shame to go around and around and around. Bruce, Stuart and Marsha I believe share many of the same, or similar ideas regarding the world and its politics.
Minimum wage is an idea that is difficult to get a handle on. I remember when I was 11 and worked for 50cents an hour. It was my first job and big money as I had little concept of what money meant. As that wage grew with my ever growing experience I began to appreciate money and wages and what they could do with my life and its goals.
At that time I had the support of my family for food, housing, clothing, etc. Later in life that changed to where they needed that same support from me and family had a fuller meaning.
The question of "minimum wage" was there then and it is here now, although it has changed to a "living wage".
We all need to live and we know what it costs in the United States. That is the simple part. It gets tougher when we realize someone has to pay for a "living wage".
As we edge into the 21st century we have begun to realize that "someone" has to have a name and a connection to the power brokers of the country to make these decision.
Our country is wealthy, very wealthy, but it belongs to businesses. We have provided the means and methods to allow the successful business person to accumulate wealth. This is the complicated part.
If you noticed, during part of this pandemic the Federal Government gave millions to the airlines to keep them in existence. This was tax money that was spent....individuals and businesses. There was no public outcry against this and other types of business aid, nor did I expect any.
What we found out once again is that the country did have real wealth and that "someone" had a name....the United States Government as defined by our people and their businesses.. So, what about the minimum or living wage discussion????
If you have noticed, I am sure you have, there is a new child income law that has been passed. President Joe Biden and his Democratic followers decided to bypass the "living wage" discussion. Instead each child with a family whose income is less than a specified amount will receive $300 a month.
The President and his advisors seem to think that ending child poverty is
important and this measure will lessen it by approximately 45%. WOW!
That is a big, big thing!
Perhaps another outcome might be a resolution to the "living wage" discussion that has gone on forever. Is there still a huge need for it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Is this the answer? Hmmmm, maybe, and maybe not.
Just a thought. Good things do happen after DJT and his cronies.
And I am highly offended by the accusation of "child labor abuse". There's politics and then there's common sense, see my comments below. You are one of those people who make me want to reconsider my liberal bent.
I regret you were offended. My intent was not to offend. However, it seems from your comments you do support a living wage standard, at least for some employees.
Sadly, this is not the case for many of my daughter's high school classmates. They are working during the school day at drive thru windows during pandemic. They've opted to remain "virtual' students so they can work. My daughter's best friend is the middle child with 4 younger siblings. Her parents were recently in a car accident. Her parents work at hourly wage jobs. They can't work. So it is up to the teenager to help support her family.
...does NOT support... Fixed it for ya. 😉
Thank you
Better now
You have so aptly described this unconscionable situation. I just wish more mainstream Republicans would listen to you.
Bruce 1000%
Bruce, this is well put. Power, control and wealth overwhelm those who cannot vote and are second citizens in this nation, or any nation. It is no simpler, nor no more complicated than that.
It’s about capitalism. Unregulated capitalism. Racism is ancillary, a tool for the ultimate aim.Power untrammeled by democracy’s impractical, unwanted bow to regular peoples’ voice. It’s about money and power exploiting racial sentiments or any other exploitable sentiment - guns, sexuality, religion, gender, unions, for its aggrandizement. It’s about protecting unregulated capitalism. Corporations calling the shots. Don’t get side tracked.