Except, the federal government has already done it. Federal wages are based on locality. I make more in DC than I would in rural TN. San Francisco and Houston make more than DC. It’s meant to be based on prevailing wage rates, but even then it’s not. But there is some acknowledgement that different areas have different wages.
Maybe someone else has more expertise in this area than I do, but I’m not actually sure whether the federal government has the power to set local minimum wages? It’s one thing to pay your own employees based on COL, quite another to set different states at different min wages given the federal/state rights tension.
I think rubytue meant that the federal government has done it literally as an employer, not as the government by setting state and local wage minimums. So the information and infrastructure is kind of already in place to implement on a larger scale across all employers.
Maybe someone else has more expertise in this area than I do, but I’m not actually sure whether the federal government has the power to set local minimum wages? It’s one thing to pay your own employees based on COL, quite another to set different states at different min wages given the federal/state rights tension.
I think rubytue meant that the federal government has done it literally as an employer, not as the government by setting state and local wage minimums. So the information and infrastructure is kind of already in place to implement on a larger scale across all employers.
No I understood that - I’m just saying that, in response to Lilac’s question, I’m not sure whether the federal government could actually set local minimum wages as she was proposing. Even if they do have relative COL already worked out.
Except, the federal government has already done it. Federal wages are based on locality. I make more in DC than I would in rural TN. San Francisco and Houston make more than DC. It’s meant to be based on prevailing wage rates, but even then it’s not. But there is some acknowledgement that different areas have different wages.
Maybe someone else has more expertise in this area than I do, but I’m not actually sure whether the federal government has the power to set local minimum wages? It’s one thing to pay your own employees based on COL, quite another to set different states at different min wages given the federal/state rights tension.
That is a fair point. And typically, the feds can only regulate interstate commerce. So maybe only people that cross state lines to work? I wasn’t trying to say this was something that should be done, but just that it could be done without forming new agencies to do it. The data exisit.
seeyalater52, that’s a good point, I obviously don’t know the answer, but the way you worded it, no, probably not. I guess I was thinking more of the rate being set as a calculation rather than a dollar amount. I don’t know exactly how it could be done, though.
Can I just saw how refreshing it is to be able to discuss an actual topic here with pros and cons and questions? It’s such a nice break from the anger and frustration that has filled so many of our conversations in the past 4 years!
I think rubytue meant that the federal government has done it literally as an employer, not as the government by setting state and local wage minimums. So the information and infrastructure is kind of already in place to implement on a larger scale across all employers.
No I understood that - I’m just saying that, in response to Lilac’s question, I’m not sure whether the federal government could actually set local minimum wages as she was proposing. Even if they do have relative COL already worked out.
Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t know the answer, either.
Why have we as a society decided that the work of a tech worker is that much more valuable than the work of others? I struggle with the fact as a society we have decided that tech workers are that much more valuable than anyone else and I say this as someone with a technology degree.
What bugs me about this whole thing (not in this thread necessarily, just in general) is why we feel like we need to have others under us to feel good about ourselves. If I am making a fair wage for my work, it's fair whether the person cleaning our office or the admin assistant answering the phones makes minimum wage or makes the same wage as I do. We're both working full time, we're both working hard (often, I'd assume they are working harder than me - I certainly don't want to be cleaning the office!), and we're both human beings. Why should I see it as harm to me if she makes more money? Either I'm getting paid what I should for what I do, or I'm not and that's a separate issue than what she makes.
I honestly don't think most people would choose working at Target or as a bus driver or whatever just because they would make the same wage doing that as doing more intrinsically rewarding work. There are places I could work as a waitress and make similar money to what I've made in my career, but I am damn glad to be done with the part of my life where I waited tables - it was hard work and less intellectually interesting. People also have all different levels of intelligence and opportunity - just because I'm smarter and more privileged than many people to have been able to go to college and work in a white collar field, doesn't mean I actually deserve a better life than someone who doesn't have that level of intelligence, education, or opportunity. Not everyone can get a college degree, but it shouldn't doom them to live a worse life than someone who does IMO.
I agree with you, but now you’re getting into the area of education inflation — both the absolute cost of a degree (which can run hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the minimum level of education required for many jobs that didn’t used to require a bachelors. (For example, I was just reading that Larry King didn’t go to college.)
Our society overvalues the knowledge economy but the cost of entry is so high. I can’t blame people for feeling like they’ve been sold a bill of goods when they’re buried under student loan debt and making under $40k. Still, their anger is misdirected at the people making minimum wage rather than the employers who moved the goalposts.
Thank you to all who are sharing informed thoughts on this issue.
One thing that I’ve been trying to figure out is how this works with all of the different costs of living in the country. $15/hr in a small Midwest town results in a very different quality of life than $15 in HCOL. A “livable wage” in rural IL is much different than in even mid-sized cities. The result may end up where $15/hr means someone is still just scraping by in some areas, but living quite comfortably in others.
I wonder why the discussion has never been to base the minimum wage on a calculation that considers COL rather than a blanket amount. (Or maybe it has and I just haven’t seen it?)
WA is on target to make a $15 minimum wage. We’re at $13.50 currently, but in larger cities like Seattle, the minimum wage is higher at. $15-16/hour. Suburban and rural areas with the lower COL pay less than their urban counterparts. I believe places like NY and CA are similar; larger cities pay more. And for the record, Big Macs in downtown Seattle don’t cost $15. They’re only slightly more expensive.
What bugs me about this whole thing (not in this thread necessarily, just in general) is why we feel like we need to have others under us to feel good about ourselves. If I am making a fair wage for my work, it's fair whether the person cleaning our office or the admin assistant answering the phones makes minimum wage or makes the same wage as I do. We're both working full time, we're both working hard (often, I'd assume they are working harder than me - I certainly don't want to be cleaning the office!), and we're both human beings. Why should I see it as harm to me if she makes more money? Either I'm getting paid what I should for what I do, or I'm not and that's a separate issue than what she makes.
I honestly don't think most people would choose working at Target or as a bus driver or whatever just because they would make the same wage doing that as doing more intrinsically rewarding work. There are places I could work as a waitress and make similar money to what I've made in my career, but I am damn glad to be done with the part of my life where I waited tables - it was hard work and less intellectually interesting. People also have all different levels of intelligence and opportunity - just because I'm smarter and more privileged than many people to have been able to go to college and work in a white collar field, doesn't mean I actually deserve a better life than someone who doesn't have that level of intelligence, education, or opportunity. Not everyone can get a college degree, but it shouldn't doom them to live a worse life than someone who does IMO.
I agree with you, but now you’re getting into the area of education inflation — both the absolute cost of a degree (which can run hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the minimum level of education required for many jobs that didn’t used to require a bachelors. (For example, I was just reading that Larry King didn’t go to college.)
Our society overvalues the knowledge economy but the cost of entry is so high. I can’t blame people for feeling like they’ve been sold a bill of goods when they’re buried under student loan debt and making under $40k. Still, their anger is misdirected at the people making minimum wage rather than the employers who moved the goalposts.
I remember a few years ago I was looking for jobs. In my area (coastal NJ) even receptionist positions were requiring a bachelor’s degree. Listed pay was $9/hr for a well qualified applicant. It’s absolutely insane. Someone with average undergrad loans absolutely can’t afford to work for $9/hr and support themselves. And a reception position requires a lot of skills, none of which are necessarily gained through higher education. You need to be excellent with the public, able to process information quickly, and knowledgeable about the organization your’e working for (memorization of individual’s phone extensions, etc). I know plenty of college graduates with none of those skills.
I agree with you, but now you’re getting into the area of education inflation — both the absolute cost of a degree (which can run hundreds of thousands of dollars) and the minimum level of education required for many jobs that didn’t used to require a bachelors. (For example, I was just reading that Larry King didn’t go to college.)
Our society overvalues the knowledge economy but the cost of entry is so high. I can’t blame people for feeling like they’ve been sold a bill of goods when they’re buried under student loan debt and making under $40k. Still, their anger is misdirected at the people making minimum wage rather than the employers who moved the goalposts.
I remember a few years ago I was looking for jobs. In my area (coastal NJ) even receptionist positions were requiring a bachelor’s degree. Listed pay was $9/hr for a well qualified applicant. It’s absolutely insane. Someone with average undergrad loans absolutely can’t afford to work for $9/hr and support themselves. And a reception position requires a lot of skills, none of which are necessarily gained through higher education. You need to be excellent with the public, able to process information quickly, and knowledgeable about the organization your’e working for (memorization of individual’s phone extensions, etc). I know plenty of college graduates with none of those skills.
My 2 front desk employees are so amazing. They both have degrees from community college but they really don't use anything they might have learned from those degrees in their positions. I have worn every hat in my practice at some point and my least favorite is answering the phone yet that role is so critical. But I'm not in a position to pay someone $30/hour in this role (not yet, maybe someday) when the market says their salary tops out at less.
I remember a few years ago I was looking for jobs. In my area (coastal NJ) even receptionist positions were requiring a bachelor’s degree. Listed pay was $9/hr for a well qualified applicant. It’s absolutely insane. Someone with average undergrad loans absolutely can’t afford to work for $9/hr and support themselves. And a reception position requires a lot of skills, none of which are necessarily gained through higher education. You need to be excellent with the public, able to process information quickly, and knowledgeable about the organization your’e working for (memorization of individual’s phone extensions, etc). I know plenty of college graduates with none of those skills.
My 2 front desk employees are so amazing. They both have degrees from community college but they really don't use anything they might have learned from those degrees in their positions. I have worn every hat in my practice at some point and my least favorite is answering the phone yet that role is so critical. But I'm not in a position to pay someone $30/hour in this role (not yet, maybe someday) when the market says their salary tops out at less.
My point is that you can find people who will be amazing at role that who haven’t paid for a pricey degree to do it well. And that setting that as a *minimum* requirement for this particular role is setting too high a bar given the amount you can pay them.
I think rubytue meant that the federal government has done it literally as an employer, not as the government by setting state and local wage minimums. So the information and infrastructure is kind of already in place to implement on a larger scale across all employers.
No I understood that - I’m just saying that, in response to Lilac’s question, I’m not sure whether the federal government could actually set local minimum wages as she was proposing. Even if they do have relative COL already worked out.
Congress could pass a law that would authoritze the Department of Labor to set minimum wages based on locality.
If however Congress passed a law setting a national mininum wage with nothing more (ie the current status quo), then DOL/the executive branch could not then issue things to change that based on COL.
No I understood that - I’m just saying that, in response to Lilac’s question, I’m not sure whether the federal government could actually set local minimum wages as she was proposing. Even if they do have relative COL already worked out.
Congress could pass a law that would authoritze the Department of Labor to set minimum wages based on locality.
If however Congress passed a law setting a national mininum wage with nothing more (ie the current status quo), then DOL/the executive branch could not then issue things to change that based on COL.
I didn't mean to post and run yesterday, but the day got crazy...
Thank you so much for this discussion! I didn't realize how complex this issue is. Economics has never been one of my strengths, so I appreciate all the examples and explanations. They helped me get things into a good perspective.
It's funny how my family are all hard core capitalists, bootstraps, trickle down, etc. But they can't see how the system is actively working against them. Businesses and corporations mean more to them than actual people.
Why have we as a society decided that the work of a tech worker is that much more valuable than the work of others? I struggle with the fact as a society we have decided that tech workers are that much more valuable than anyone else and I say this as someone with a technology degree.
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
Why have we as a society decided that the work of a tech worker is that much more valuable than the work of others? I struggle with the fact as a society we have decided that tech workers are that much more valuable than anyone else and I say this as someone with a technology degree.
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
I wouldn’t say more important, but it definitely has to do with how much revenue is then generated for someone higher up. It all comes back to capitalism and the 1%. Paying athletes and tech workers more to attract better talent directly affects the money coming in to the people who pay their salaries and the shareholders. Paying teachers more doesn’t affect the stock market in a visible way so no one (hyperbole) cares.
Post by Jalapeñomel on Jan 24, 2021 10:26:19 GMT -5
I have heard in my past (from the conservations in my family and community) that the minimum wage jobs were never meant to be a job with a “living wage”. As if working in a grocery store or restaurant were jobs only reserved for teenagers on summer vacation.
I have heard in my past (from the conservations in my family and community) that the minimum wage jobs were never meant to be a job with a “living wage”. As if working in a grocery store or restaurant were jobs only reserved for teenagers on summer vacation.
And I bet these same people were cheering for the "essential workers" during the lockdown, right?
So they're essential to society, but they shouldn't make a living wage. 🤔
And who do these people think are serving them their Big Macs at noon on a school day?
I completely get your point.
@ However, this reminded me that my high school used to participate in a program called "School to Work." The intent of this program was to give high school students job experience that they could put on a resume before they graduated from high school. For instance, when I was in high school, some of my classmates took the classes that were required for graduation in the morning. Then, in the afternoon, instead of taking electives (such as art, band, etc.), they would get out of class early and at a clerical job for a local company. Some of the kids who were in the "business" track at my high school did this because they were training to either get entry-level office jobs or else go to two-year business colleges after high school graduation.
However, by the time that my younger sister was in high school, kids were using the "school to work" program to get out of school after lunch and go work at Burger King all afternoon - in lieu of taking electives. I think that my high school discontinued their participation in the program after this.
The crux of it is that as wages stagnated, the American workforce began to be told to “do what you love,” and to seek fulfillment from their jobs. In the 1980s, Americans started to be fed these sorts of tropes about a lot of lower-wage jobs that still required a significant educational investment: it’s a passion; it’s a calling; it takes a special person, etc.
In that sense, maybe we SHOULD be asking whether it’s fair to require a master’s degree for jobs that only pay a few dollars more per hour than minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage isn’t what’s devaluing those jobs — those jobs have already been devalued, and raising the minimum wage just shows us what employers have been trying to hide for decades.
ETA: And yes, a lot of those jobs are in the public sector or in healthcare. But it still goes back to wealth inequality when we refuse to tax billionaires and corporations at a level that allows us to fund social services or subsidize higher education for those sorts of jobs (like other countries do.)
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
I wouldn’t say more important, but it definitely has to do with how much revenue is then generated for someone higher up. It all comes back to capitalism and the 1%. Paying athletes and tech workers more to attract better talent directly affects the money coming in to the people who pay their salaries and the shareholders. Paying teachers more doesn’t affect the stock market in a visible way so no one (hyperbole) cares.
Yep, it's capitalism and it's stupid. I am so way overpaid compared to say a teacher who does way more important and valuable work than me, and yet at times underpaid within tech. Tax rates should be way higher at my household income (we're in the 24% tax bracket thanks to stupid tax cuts). Of course I also don't expect to be able to keep earning this salary forever, eventually I will hit up against either a tech crash or ageism.
Why have we as a society decided that the work of a tech worker is that much more valuable than the work of others? I struggle with the fact as a society we have decided that tech workers are that much more valuable than anyone else and I say this as someone with a technology degree.
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
Well I think this is capitalism at work, not that people themselves individually think someone deserves to be paid millions vs $10 at an individual level. To be honest, sometimes I think I'm a "bad" progressive as I'm not sure I can imagine a point where I'd get to a point that I want capitalism to go away fully. But maybe existing in a world without it, where things were more equal financially, we lived in a collective society and that there was more of a ceiling to how much one could make, I wouldn't know the difference and would prefer that?
My partner is a musician and before covid made 6 figures and more than me. Obviously his career can pay those kind of prices, since people pay for entertainment in the for-profit model. And to be fair music, dance, art, sports, etc, although obviously not 100% essential to us literally breathing, they are essential to our culture and people in those professions do work hard and are smart. My partner is definitely smarter than me!
I think it's kind of conflating 2 things. Yes everyone deserves a living wage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that other people who bring a different value to society deserve less of a wage. If sports, music, entertainment, etc went away I do not think suddenly pediatricians would be getting paid a million dollars or teacher's would be getting paid $500,000 a year to signify their worth to society. But we do need to re-imagine ways to solve the inequities in our country.
ETA: are teachers and doctors and anyone else that operates an essential service, paid generally the same amount in socialist societies? I really do not know and would be curious to know this.
Congress could pass a law that would authoritze the Department of Labor to set minimum wages based on locality.
If however Congress passed a law setting a national mininum wage with nothing more (ie the current status quo), then DOL/the executive branch could not then issue things to change that based on COL.
Hi!!!! Thank you for the answer, smart friend.
I’m curious about Sanders’ proposal to index based on median wages, and whether states would want to try to do the same, but more locally. I’m in California and work in family support, and we have been closely reviewing options in terms of the presumptions we make about earnings, as well as the needs for self-sufficiency.
Love of my life baby boy born 11/11. One and done not by choice; 3 years of TTC yielded 4 MMC and 2 CPs, through 4 IUIs and 2 IVFs. Focusing on making the world a better place instead...and running.
ETA: are teachers and doctors and anyone else that operates an essential service, paid generally the same amount in socialist societies? I really do not know and would be curious to know this.
Canada is a socialist democracy, so not a perfectly socialist state. In Ontario the average teacher salary is $88k, the average family doctor makes $305k. Minimum wage is currently $14/hr.
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
Well I think this is capitalism at work, not that people themselves individually think someone deserves to be paid millions vs $10 at an individual level. To be honest, sometimes I think I'm a "bad" progressive as I'm not sure I can imagine a point where I'd get to a point that I want capitalism to go away fully. But maybe existing in a world without it, where things were more equal financially, we lived in a collective society and that there was more of a ceiling to how much one could make, I wouldn't know the difference and would prefer that?
My partner is a musician and before covid made 6 figures and more than me. Obviously his career can pay those kind of prices, since people pay for entertainment in the for-profit model. And to be fair music, dance, art, sports, etc, although obviously not 100% essential to us literally breathing, they are essential to our culture and people in those professions do work hard and are smart. My partner is definitely smarter than me!
I think it's kind of conflating 2 things. Yes everyone deserves a living wage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that other people who bring a different value to society deserve less of a wage. If sports, music, entertainment, etc went away I do not think suddenly pediatricians would be getting paid a million dollars or teacher's would be getting paid $500,000 a year to signify their worth to society. But we do need to re-imagine ways to solve the inequities in our country.
ETA: are teachers and doctors and anyone else that operates an essential service, paid generally the same amount in socialist societies? I really do not know and would be curious to know this.
Yeah I’m a “bad” moderate liberal and I don’t think all capitalism is 100% inherently evil. I’d love to take a look back at history and see the exact point in let’s say the upper 10% took a major pay increase versus the rest of us. Athletes and athletic entertainment are important in our culture, they work very hard, they generate a lot of money and they deserve to be fairly and well compensated in return. But I was reading a top baseball contract is now roughly $30 million. Why not $20 or $25? I know that an athlete is a corporation unto themselves and their salary has to feed the beast, but how much more buying power is that extra $5-$10 million giving someone versus circulating that salary so that the people who clean the stadium bathrooms earn a living wage. Same with outlandish ceo or entertainment pay:
For the same reason we have decided that the work of a professional athlete is worth more than that of a teacher.
I wouldn’t say more important, but it definitely has to do with how much revenue is then generated for someone higher up. It all comes back to capitalism and the 1%. Paying athletes and tech workers more to attract better talent directly affects the money coming in to the people who pay their salaries and the shareholders. Paying teachers more doesn’t affect the stock market in a visible way so no one (hyperbole) cares.
I would argue that by allowing the top 1% to retain their wealth and have undo influence capitalism is fundamentally broken.
Take Uber for example, as of early 2020 they had yet to become profitable. I would argue that if a 12 year old company isn't profitable than maybe we shouldn't be justifying the higher salaries for the employees in that company. I think that ride hailing apps in general are a service that provides value, but I can't help but think if Uber didn't have the vast amounts of venture capital backing would they have been forced to charge market rates and would this have allowed cab drivers etc, the ability to adapt. How can we have a truly free market when companies can operate at a loss for 12 years while driving their competitors out of business?
ETA: are teachers and doctors and anyone else that operates an essential service, paid generally the same amount in socialist societies? I really do not know and would be curious to know this.
Canada is a socialist democracy, so not a perfectly socialist state. In Ontario the average teacher salary is $88k, the average family doctor makes $305k. Minimum wage is currently $14/hr.
Thanks for sharing!
I think the realistic options for the US is going to be to tax businesses and rich individuals more in order for the government to support health care, public health, education, housing, etc.
Hopefully we won’t be starting anymore wars in the Middle East either so our military budgets can change :/
Because at least during our lifetimes there’s never going to be a thing where there’s a max salary someone or some business can earn. I don’t think that would actually solve the problem either.