Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Archaeology cat]

thats very sad 

don't ever give up on family 

Sad, yes, but true. I don't know what a family friend would do without help from non-family, because she doesn't have family who could help. I'm lucky, because I do have family who can help a lot, but that isn't true for many people.

[little2add]

No Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, or uncles

no relatives at all.   ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Archaeology cat]

No Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, or uncles

no relatives at all.   ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

There's one aunt, and she can't help with much.

Then there are those who technically do have family, but are estranged from them and can't go to them for help.

Should it be like that? No. But life doesn't always work the way it should.

[little2add]

There's one aunt, and she can't help with much.

Then there are those who technically do have family, but are estranged from them and can't go to them for help.

Should it be like that? No. But life doesn't always work the way it should.

it doesn't have to be..

that's I'm saying

[little2add]

Do teachers provide a "valuable commodity or service to the community"? Is it less valuable than an iPhone?

I recognize your arguments: They're Republican. Anything that would restrict businesses from doing whatever they like is wrong. All responsibility falls on the employee who "chooses" to work for a business.

That argument's not in line with Catholic social teaching.

you sound like you think that's a bad thing

[Socrates]

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." ?

The biggest problem with artificially raising the minimum wage is that it means fewer low-skill entry level jobs, and more people unemployed, unable to find work, and living off the public dole.  I don't think anybody would consider that a good thing, unless you're a leftist politician who wants more people dependent on the government.

Instead of focusing on more taxes and subsidies or artificially jacking up the wages of burger-flippers, the focus needs to be on policies that encourage the creation of more better jobs, especially blue-collar jobs, and encourage entrepreneurship.  And, yes, a large part of that will be through free-market policies and cutting job-killing taxes, red-tape and regulation on American businesses, and the federal government getting the hell out of the way.  (For example, the EPA's killing lots of blue-collar jobs by shutting down coal plants.)

[little2add]

for what its worth - Pope Francis: ‘Whoever Will Not Work Should Not Eat’
this news story made me think of this debate topic, because a persons work ethic and attitude is often directly related to the size of his or her pocketbook.  

My parents instilled a really good work ethic from when I was little - if you want to have money to spend on holidays, you earn it. So I've always been someone who wanted to be able to survive by myself. 

i think of minimum wage as the first rung on a ladder, you have to start at the bottom... but with a little effort and coordination you can and will make it to the top.

little2add

 

 

AP

by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.19 Aug 20157,378

 

In his weekly Angelus message Wednesday, Pope Francis praised the value of hard work and a willingness to do one’s part for the common good rather than freeloading off society.

Citing Saint Paul, Francis said that “anyone unwilling to work should not eat” and added that being called a hard worker is the highest form of praise for a “serious, honest person.”

To call someone a worker, the Pope said, means that he is a member of the community who does his part and doesn’t “live off others.”

Work, he noted, “is needed to support one’s family, raise children and ensure a decent life to loved ones.” This habit of hard work, he added, is learned in the home, from one’s parents who support their family and in this way contribute to the common good.

Christians can find a great example of industriousness in the life of Jesus himself, Francis said. In the Gospel, “the Holy Family of Nazareth appears as a working family, and Jesus himself is called a ‘carpenter’s son’ or even ‘the carpenter.’”

Saint Paul’s injunction that people who don’t want to work shouldn’t eat is a “good recipe for losing weight,” he quipped.

Paul’s denunciation of idleness, Francis continued, “refers explicitly to a false spiritualism of some who lived off the backs of their brothers and sisters while ‘doing nothing.’” In the Christian outlook, a commitment of hard work is not opposed to a deep spiritual life, Francis said, referencing the example of Saint Benedict who taught that “prayer and work can and should be found together in harmony.”

“A lack of work is bad for the spirit,” the Pope said, just as a lack of prayer detracts from practical activity.

Work, he said, “expresses the dignity of being created in the image of God. That is why it is said that work is sacred.”

“I am sad when I see that there are people out of work, who cannot find work and do not have the dignity to bring home their daily bread. And I rejoice so much when I see that the leaders make efforts to create jobs and so that everyone has a job,” he said.

God’s commandment to man to work to cultivate the earth is part of his plan for creation, the Pope said. “The beauty of the land and the dignity of work are made to go together. Both go hand in hand: the earth becomes beautiful when it is worked by man.”

Francis also warned that the modern organization of work “sometimes shows a dangerous tendency to consider the family a burden, a weight, a liability for labor productivity. But let us ask: what productivity? And for whom?” A system based only on efficiency “is often hostile to children and the elderly,” he said.

May God enable us to accept his call to work “with joy and hope,” he said.

[Archaeology cat]

From what you posted: "“I am sad when I see that there are people out of work, who cannot find work and do not have the dignity to bring home their daily bread. And I rejoice so much when I see that the leaders make efforts to create jobs and so that everyone has a job,” he said."     and

"Francis also warned that the modern organization of work “sometimes shows a dangerous tendency to consider the family a burden, a weight, a liability for labor productivity. But let us ask: what productivity? And for whom?” A system based only on efficiency “is often hostile to children and the elderly,” he said.""

This is what people are saying. Not that people should be able to just laze around, but that workers should be given a just wage so they can support their families - without both parents having to work so one can stay home with the children (if they so choose; we make sacrifices so I can stay home, though I do work from home some, too). In addition, those who cannot work, should be cared for.

It would be great if families alone could provide for all who cannot work, but that isn't reality. If you have family who can help, you are privileged.

[Peace]

The biggest problem with artificially raising the minimum wage is that it means fewer low-skill entry level jobs, and more people unemployed, unable to find work, and living off the public dole.  I don't think anybody would consider that a good thing, unless you're a leftist politician who wants more people dependent on the government.

Instead of focusing on more taxes and subsidies or artificially jacking up the wages of burger-flippers, the focus needs to be on policies that encourage the creation of more better jobs, especially blue-collar jobs, and encourage entrepreneurship.  And, yes, a large part of that will be through free-market policies and cutting job-killing taxes, red-tape and regulation on American businesses, and the federal government getting the hell out of the way.  (For example, the EPA's killing lots of blue-collar jobs by shutting down coal plants.)

"Burger-flipper" huh? My sister and brother-in-law are both custodians - do you have a demeaning way to refer to their work as well? "Toilet-wiper" perhaps?

I think there are at least two types of conservatives (and perhaps there are the same two types of liberals as well). There appears to be a first type who advocates for conservative policy primarily because they believe it is what will be best for everyone at large (I would put Friedman in this category). Another type appears to advocate conservative policies as a means of self-righteous gratification. They seem aghast at the idea that the government should take their hard earned dollars and give it to some lazy or otherwise unqualified person. When you start calling people burger-flippers and complaining that they be paid $7.25 an hour, it leads me to suspect that you may be in the latter category.

To the point of your post - I accept that raising the minimum wage has the negative effect of increasing unemployment. I would be OK with eliminating it as long as there is a social safety net that remains to prevent people from falling through the cracks when it is repealed.

As you appear to be in favor of free markets, are you also in favor of repealing restrictive immigration laws that artificially limit the supply of labor and reduce competition?

I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that we give the presidency and both houses of Congress to people that you consider "true conservatives" and institute each and every policy that you believe should be instituted.

In this free-market utopia, let's also suppose that there are still a small number of people who are unable to provide sufficiently for themselves. Let's say then that the government decides to impose a 10% tax on every person making more than one billion dollars, in order to provide for those people's needs.

Would that 10% tax be acceptable to you?

The reason I am asking this question is to get a better sense of whether you are an ideologue. In other words, I ask the question to get a better sense of whether you care more about personal freedom than you do about people.

[Gabriela]

I think there are at least two types of conservatives (and perhaps there are the same two types of liberals as well). There appears to be a first type who advocates for conservative policy primarily because they believe it is what will be best for everyone at large (I would put Friedman in this category). Another type appears to advocate conservative policies as a means of self-righteous gratification. They seem aghast at the idea that the government should take their hard earned dollars and give it to some lazy or otherwise unqualified person. When you start calling people burger-flippers and complaining that they be paid $7.25 an hour, it leads me to suspect that you may be in the latter category.

I absolutely agree with this, and I think it's good someone finally made this point in this thread. But I think the term "burger-flipper" is pretty standard parlance these days. I've heard people who work in fast food restaurants say it about themselves. Yes, in using it, they mean to demean their work, but I don't think that a term that's come to be used with so much variation—much of that "neutral"—should be dispensed with. It's really a person's intent in using it that matters, and if it's meant to be deprecatory, one can typically tell that immediately by tone or context. To me, Socrates' usage of the phrase sounded pretty neutral, though I can see how his position on the minimum wage might lead one to think otherwise.

We've got enough politically correct 15-syllable terms where 3-syllable words would do. And personally I tend to prefer more-colloquial phrases because they're much more colorful than government-ese. So long as we aren't using such words uncharitably, I don't see a problem.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Gabriela

[Peace]

I absolutely agree with this, and I think it's good someone finally made this point in this thread. But I think the term "burger-flipper" is pretty standard parlance these days. I've heard people who work in fast food restaurants say it about themselves. Yes, in using it, they mean to demean their work, but I don't think that a term that's come to be used with so much variation—much of that "neutral"—should be dispensed with. It's really a person's intent in using it that matters, and if it's meant to be deprecatory, one can typically tell that immediately by tone or context. To me, Socrates' usage of the phrase sounded pretty neutral, though I can see how his position on the minimum wage might lead one to think otherwise.

We've got enough politically correct 15-syllable terms where 3-syllable words would do. And personally I tend to prefer more-colloquial phrases because they're much more colorful than government-ese. So long as we aren't using such words uncharitably, I don't see a problem.

Well. I don't think that common parlance or a person's intent should be determinative, although I would take them into account. Let's say a white person sees many black people refer to themselves using the N-word in what appears to be a brotherly manner, and then takes it upon himself to refer to me using the N-word, with that same brotherly intention. I think I am still justified at being offended by his use of the word, regardless of his good intention or the fact that some black people use it. I think that much of the same can be said of "burger-flipper":

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=burger+flipper

Somebody who works in a fast-food outlet flipping hamburgers, possibly lacking the ability to do anything much more mentally taxing. Also loosely applied to other unqualified, unmotivated workers who come into contact with customers. Anybody who is forced to talk to the public while wearing a baseball cap bearing the company logo (and who is not a baseball player) probably qualifies.

Now. If using a different word is being politically correct, then I am all for political correctness. I am also for moral correctness. I think that we should be careful about how we refer to people. There are plenty of fast food workers who do their jobs in order to help put food on the table just like I do. And they do more than just flip burgers, such as cleaning, etc. It is work that needs to be done, and we are no better or worse than the people who do it. So I think there is a better term that can be used that would be more respectful.

I remember a few years back I used the word "retarded" causally in a sentence to refer to something stupid that I had done. Somebody pointed out that my use of the word was inappropriate and corrected my use of it. And rightfully so. That might be what some would call being politically correct. I would just call it doing the right thing.

I'll get off of my high horse now.

[Norseman82]

Sad, yes, but true. I don't know what a family friend would do without help from non-family, because she doesn't have family who could help. I'm lucky, because I do have family who can help a lot, but that isn't true for many people.

 

No Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, or uncles

no relatives at all.   ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

There's one aunt, and she can't help with much.

Then there are those who technically do have family, but are estranged from them and can't go to them for help.

Should it be like that? No. But life doesn't always work the way it should.

And then there are people like me who lost entire family early, and the older generation is dying out (where the three octogenarian aunts will need help instead of giving help), and extended family is breaking apart with the cousins starting to have their own grandkids.  So, yeah, there are those who have little to no close family. 

 

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

Keep in mind, too, that he is from India, which has a different culture of extended family than here in America, where an able-bodied adult male is expected to pull his own bootstraps.

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.)

Maybe you are thinking of something like the Earned Income Credit?

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.

One alternative I could support is linking a minimum age increase to a cut on business taxes (the U.S. corporate tax rate is considered to be among the highest in the western industrialized world). 

Edited August 23, 2015 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

I agree. The more-fundamental problem is the disappearance of the middle class, which I think is due largely to outsourcing of factory jobs to other countries.

Which is why I think globalism—as it exists now—is fundamentally bad.

It's not just factory jobs - it's also the high-tech jobs that Maggyie referred to.  If you can log on to work from home, there is someone in India that can also log on and do it for 10% of your salary (quality of work is another issue).  So that will depress wages here as well. 

[little2add]

 

Keep in mind, too, that he is from India, which has a different culture of extended family than here in America, where an able-bodied adult male is expected to pull his own bootstraps.

 

unless you are Italian-American

[Ice_nine]

Cheap labor and slave labor makes the world go 'round!