Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Ash Wednesday]

There's an awful lot of shouting and abrasiveness going on in this thread that really isn't necessary when getting your points across.

 

[Didacus]

 

the job could be outsourced to Pakistan and India or some other some other backwater hellhole  and probably will in a short time    

There's a vast difference between skilled and unskilled labor.   You wouldn't pay a doctor the same thing  that you would pay a restaurant busboy

pay or wages should be based on merit and for providing a valuable commodity or service to  The community 

 

 is that why baseball players are multi-millionaires?

[Peace]

Personally I think that every American should be guaranteed a minimum income. The government (by imposing taxes on its citizens) should start off by providing each person with a certain level of money needed to survive, regardless of whether the person works or not. Then what each person earns above and beyond that via work is left to the free market, and you save on adminstrative costs of programs like SNAP by eliminating them and providing money to people directly.

[Gabriela]

Personally I think that every American should be guaranteed a minimum income. The government (by imposing taxes on its citizens) should start off by providing each person with a certain level of money needed to survive, regardless of whether the person works or not. Then what each person earns above and beyond that via work is left to the free market, and you save on adminstrative costs of programs like SNAP by eliminating them and providing money to people directly.

What's the incentive to work in a system like this? Public shaming? (I'm not opposed to public shaming, but these days, when communities are so weak and people so independent, I don't think it works very well.)

[Peace]

What's the incentive to work in a system like this? Public shaming? (I'm not opposed to public shaming, but these days, when communities are so weak and people so independent, I don't think it works very well.)

Well. I don't think that most people would be content to live on $10,000 a year (or whatever the calculated minimum level of sustenance would be).

Some people would be, and to a certain extent I don't think there is anything you can do about it. But that is not too different than the system that we have today. The only difference is that you would be giving people cash instead of giving them food stamps, etc. and having to employ people to properly screen them for the program and allocate the food stamps to them.

But to help address that concern Friedman proposed a system along these lines: You set a base income level of say $10,000. If a person works and earns say $6000 - you give him 50% of the amount left on the table. $4000 * 0.5 = $2000. So he would end up with $8000 total.

The person who works and earns only $2000 is also given 50% of whatever is left on the table.  $8000 * 0.5 = $4000. So all together he would end up with $6000 - less than the person who worked and earned $6000. So there is an incentive to work, to a certain extent, because you only get half of what you do not earn from your work.

[Gabriela]

Well. I don't think that most people would be content to live on $10,000 a year (or whatever the calculated minimum level of sustenance would be).

Some people would be, and to a certain extent I don't think there is anything you can do about it. But that is not too different than the system that we have today. The only difference is that you would be giving people cash instead of giving them food stamps, etc. and having to employ people to properly screen them for the program and allocate the food stamps to them.

But to help address that concern Friedman proposed a system along these lines: You set a base income level of say $10,000. If a person works and earns say $6000 - you give him 50% of the amount left on the table. $4000 * 0.5 = $2000. So he would end up with $8000 total.

The person who works and earns only $2000 is also given 50% of whatever is left on the table.  $8000 * 0.5 = $4000. So all together he would end up with $6000 - less than the person who worked and earned $6000. So there is an incentive to work, to a certain extent, because you only get half of what you do not earn from your work.

Hmmm... Friedman's system is certainly creative, but I think plenty of people would settle for what they could get without working. But it sounds like in his system, you have to work to get anything. Is that right? Cuz if we just say, "You can have $10,000 for doing nothing", I can see a whole bunch of people taking that. I mean, some people really hate to work. Probably not most people would want just $10,000—as you say—but still, potentially enough to be a serious drain.

(I presume we're talking here only about people who can work. Obviously people who are actually incapable of working are a different story altogether.)

[Peace]

Hmmm... Friedman's system is certainly creative, but I think plenty of people would settle for what they could get without working. But it sounds like in his system, you have to work to get anything. Is that right? Cuz if we just say, "You can have $10,000 for doing nothing", I can see a whole bunch of people taking that. I mean, some people really hate to work. Probably not most people would want just $10,000—as you say—but still, potentially enough to be a serious drain.

(I presume we're talking here only about people who can work. Obviously people who are actually incapable of working are a different story altogether.)

Yeah. It's not a perfect system. Under the same example, for people who did no work - they would get $5000 (50% of $10000). There are going to be some folks who would say "$5000 is plenty enough to me. I ain't working!!"  I don't think there is anything you can really do about that. Some folks just aren't going to work - as you say.

I think the idea is that a guaranteed minimum income system is a more cost efficient manner of distributing support to those people. Under the current system a person who refuses to work is going to eventually get food stamps and other types of government support such as public housing in order to survive. It's not like we are really going to have people in the USA starving to death on the streets (nor should we allow them to). In the case of food stamps or public housing, you not only have to give the person who refuses to work money (in the form of food stamps or free housing) but you have to create huge government agencies and employ thousands of people to determine who qualifies and who does not, to distribute the support, to make sure that it is not being used fraudulently, etc. That takes a lot more money out of our tax-paying pockets than if you simply say "Everyone gets $X dollars a year" and then eliminate the government agencies that it takes to administer the welfare programs.

That is the idea behind it, at least.

One problem with distributing cash, of course, is that some folks are not going to use it to buy food. They are going to buy drugs and binge out on porno. But again, I don't think there is a whole lot you can do about that. People exchange food stamps for money and then buy drugs. . .

Another thing I like about the idea - hard working folks get the $10000 too. I think it gives everyone a bit of flexiblity to change jobs, try to start a new business, etc. with less worry about putting food on the table.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Peace

[little2add]

 The government already does something like that.  if you're married and have children you and your spouse can use them as a tax deduction until they're 18 

[Gabriela]

Yeah. It's not a perfect system. Under the same example, for people who did no work - they would get $5000 (50% of $10000). There are going to be some folks who would say "$5000 is plenty enough to me. I ain't working!!"  I don't think there is anything you can really do about that. Some folks just aren't going to work - as you say.

I think the idea is that a guaranteed minimum income system is a more cost efficient manner of distributing support to those people. Under the current system a person who refuses to work is going to eventually get food stamps and other types of government support such as public housing in order to survive. It's not like we are really going to have people in the USA starving to death on the streets (nor should we allow them to). In the case of food stamps or public housing, you not only have to give the person who refuses to work money (in the form of food stamps or free housing) but you have to create huge government agencies and employ thousands of people to determine who qualifies and who does not, to distribute the support, to make sure that it is not being used fraudulently, etc. That takes a lot more money out of our tax-paying pockets than if you simply say "Everyone gets $X dollars a year" and then eliminate the government agencies that it takes to administer the welfare programs.

That is the idea behind it, at least.

One problem with distributing cash, of course, is that some folks are not going to use it to buy food. They are going to buy drugs and binge out on porno. But again, I don't think there is a whole lot you can do about that. People exchange food stamps for money and then buy drugs. . .

Another thing I like about the idea - hard working folks get the $10000 too. I think it gives everyone a bit of flexiblity to change jobs, try to start a new business, etc. with less worry about putting food on the table.

I see. So let's say I earn $20,000/year. I don't get any perks, right? Or I also get the extra $10,000?

I agree it's better than what we've got. But bureaucratically, I think it'd still be complicated. The government would still have to keep track of how much money we all make, how many people are in our household, how many are working/unemployed, etc. And right now that is an enormous pain in the @$$.

Ideally, I'd like to see a system in which care for the poor is taken care of entirely by local NGOs. The government would tell us: "You owe 20% of your income in taxes. 10% of that is definitely coming to us. You have the option to give the other 10% to one or more of your local NGOs. Tell us what you want to do with it, or else it comes to us, too." That way I could send a good portion of my tax money to do the work the government is doing right now, but there'd be competition for that money, and I could steer it away from agencies that support abortion, etc. If you set all this up at the outset, you could take the taxes and NGO money right out of the paycheck every pay period, and kiss the tax return nonsense goodbye.

Of course that would require a lot of other reforms... :sigh:

Edited August 19, 2015 by Gabriela

[Peace]

I see. So let's say I earn $20,000/year. I don't get any perks, right? Or I also get the extra $10,000?

I agree it's better than what we've got. But bureaucratically, I think it'd still be complicated. The government would still have to keep track of how much money we all make, how many people are in our household, how many are working/unemployed, etc. And right now that is an enormous pain in the @$$.

Ideally, I'd like to see a system in which care for the poor is taken care of entirely by local NGOs. The government would tell us: "You owe 20% of your income in taxes. 10% of that is definitely coming to us. You have the option to give the other 10% to one or more of your local NGOs. Tell us what you want to do with it, or else it comes to us, too." That way I could send a good portion of my tax money to do the work the government is doing right now, but there'd be competition for that money, and I could steer it away from agencies that support abortion, etc. If you set all this up at the outset, you could take the taxes and NGO money right out of the paycheck every pay period, and kiss the tax return nonsense goodbye.

Of course that would require a lot of other reforms... :sigh:

That seems like an interesting idea. Are you gonna have fraud? People setting up fake NGOs just to funnel money back to themselves? You might also end up with winners and losers - people in certain neighborhoods getting way more than people in other neighborhoods. But if they can address those problems it seems like an idea.

Whether you get the $10,000 depends upon the type of plan I guess. Under the way Friedman wanted to do it - the "negative income tax" - you don't get the $10,000 (I think). Under other proposals everyone gets the $10,000 regardless of whether you make $0, $20,000 or a billion dollars. I guess this would make it pretty easy to administer, but you do have the problem of some folks who are gonna be like "$10,000?! I ain't working!!"

But I wonder how much of a problem that might be, actually. Perhaps a lot of women who might otherwise have chosen to work, might choose to take the $10,000 and stay at home with the kids while they are young. Or perhaps young people who might have otherwise chosen to work, might take the $10,000 and go to college or JC instead . . .

I know that there are some lazy folks who don't want to work, but I honestly think it is pretty rare, even for people who have been on welfare like forever (having been on welfare myself). I think wanting to work is just a basic human desire, and gives us some purpose and satisfaction out of life. My impression is that the folks who are on welfare and don't work, most of them do so because they have a disincentive to work in that their benefits are decreased when they are able to gain income of their own. When the income that they are able to earn really is not that much, in a lot of cases it might not seem logical for them to take a job, when they could get basically the same (or more) amount of benefits without working.  At least with the guaranteed minimum income (not the Friedman version) - you don't have that. They get the $10,000 and anything that they earn on top of that is also theirs - I would think that most people in that situation would try to work, go to school, or do something else productive . . .

Edited August 19, 2015 by Peace

[Socrates]

Raising the minimum wage is a political band-aid "fix" that mostly benefits politicians looking for an easy opportunity to appear righteous by "standing up for the poor," and paint all opposed as heartless bastages.

Forcing employers by law to significantly raise the minimum wage will lead employers to compensate for the increased costs by hiring fewer workers and cutting jobs, or downgrading jobs from full to part time, and/or by passing the cost to customers with higher prices, which ends up increasing the general cost of living (and thus contributing to inflation and making wages worth less in reality).

This is particularly true in businesses with low profit margins, such as fast-food.  

Fewer job openings = more unemployment.  Not a good thing for low-skilled people looking for work.

[Peace]

Raising the minimum wage is a political band-aid "fix" that mostly benefits politicians looking for an easy opportunity to appear righteous by "standing up for the poor," and paint all opposed as heartless bastages.

Forcing employers by law to significantly raise the minimum wage will lead employers to compensate for the increased costs by hiring fewer workers and cutting jobs, or downgrading jobs from full to part time, and/or by passing the cost to customers with higher prices, which ends up increasing the general cost of living (and thus contributing to inflation and making wages worth less in reality).

This is particularly true in businesses with low profit margins, such as fast-food.  

Fewer job openings = more unemployment.  Not a good thing for low-skilled people looking for work.

Fair enough. What do you do about people who do not have the skills or ability to provide for themselves and their families? You can't exactly raise a family of four on $7.25 an hour. Do you (gasp) tax wealthier people and redistribute the money to them in the form of food stamps or other subsidies? Or do you just say "Tough luck that is how the free market works baby. I guess you had better get a third job." ?

[little2add]

 

No matter how bad things get, no matter how wrong things go, family will always be there! So treasure the family you have and don’t take them for granted!

– Nishan Panwar

[puellapaschalis]

 

No matter how bad things get, no matter how wrong things go, family will always be there! So treasure the family you have and don’t take them for granted!

– Nishan Panwar

Except family are by no means always there, and sometimes it is better to avoid them.

[little2add]

 

thats very sad 

don't ever give up on family