Conservative Myth: "Minimum Wage Was Never Meant..." - OPEN DISCUSSION THREAD

Polly want a cracker is a fucking moron. Of course minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a living wage, it's not a myth, it's just common sense. What, you should be paid the big bucks for an entry level position? Um, no.

Common sense is if you want workers, pay them a living wage. You get 8 hours a day of their lives and the cost of getting to and from work. The average min wage worker is 35. https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/
 
Polly want a cracker is a fucking moron. Of course minimum wage jobs aren't meant to be a living wage, it's not a myth, it's just common sense. What, you should be paid the big bucks for an entry level position? Um, no.

Common sense is if you want workers, pay them a living wage. You get 8 hours a day of their lives and the cost of getting to and from work. The average min wage worker is 35. https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/
 
I will admit that "proper tipping etiquette" was clumsily worded on my part, as "proper" is subjective. I agree that you are the one who determines precisely what amount is a "proper" amount, as I had done in my anecdotal example.

My point on "proper tipping etiquette" is that sometimes people don't tip at all (or very stingily tip) even if they received really good service, so in that particular instance, it is not the waitress's fault that she is making little money (ie, she isn't making little money due to her "poor job performance"), but rather, it is the fault of the stingy tippers that she is making poor money. There are people who simply don't respect/realize the fact that those people make most of their money off of tips.


No. He knew the manner in which he would be compensated, or should have known, anyway...


Generally, yes... And successful bidders will obviously hit the nail on the head much more often than not. My point is that even the best of bidders cannot always foresee what they are going to run into. I'm just saying that while it is more often than not a case that the person just sucks at their job, it's not always the case in every instance.


It just means that the person has no skills beyond approaching-universal skills, thus rendering their almost universally acquired skills to be worth very little. Supply and demand.


We generally agree on this discussion, but I'm just pointing out that the first part of your post #4 was a bit narrow-sighted in my mind, as there are indeed workers who don't know exactly what they are going to make (or don't have full control over what they are going to make, the restaurant servers being the main example of that).

If someone doesn't tip at all, that isn't improper tipping etiquette is you actually believe that it's up to the person receiving the service. If you call someone stingy because they don't do it the way you think they should, you're determining how much they should tip.

The best bidders take into account in their bid for unexpected things. Most builders I know build in a contingency knowing things happen. Where I work, we recently built a new building and did the same. It's called preparing.

If someone has very few skills beyond those anyone can do, they shouldn't whine about what they makes.

While restaurant servers can't provide an to-the-penny amount, they do know the manner in which their wages will come, therefore, invalidating any complaint they have when things are what they want.
 
Common sense is if you want workers, pay them a living wage. You get 8 hours a day of their lives and the cost of getting to and from work. The average min wage worker is 35. https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/

Common sense says you don't pay someone more than the skills to do their job is worth. If their skills are that low, it's their fault.

If the average minimum wage worker is 35, that say a lot about how they've failed in life.
 
If someone doesn't tip at all, that isn't improper tipping etiquette is you actually believe that it's up to the person receiving the service. If you call someone stingy because they don't do it the way you think they should, you're determining how much they should tip.
I already admitted that my choice of terminology on the "tipping etiquette" point wasn't the best, so I'm not going to re-hash that.

I've already agreed that the tipper is who decides what is "proper". I've never advocated for forcing people to tip a certain amount, either.

I'm merely suggesting that there are indeed cases where the waitress does a damn good job, yet makes little money because people don't tip very much. That's not the waitress's fault. However, if she's doing a piss poor job and receives hardly any tips (as a reflection of her poor service), then that is entirely her own fault. -- I'm just saying that individual situations can vary like that.

Another point I was trying to express with that terminology is that it's a bit narrow-minded to claim that "I don't know of a single worker that begins a job not knowing what he/she will make. " because waitresses don't know precisely how much they are going to make, as their wages differ each day depending upon how much they receive in tips (and how busy the restaurant is on that particular day).

The best bidders take into account in their bid for unexpected things. Most builders I know build in a contingency knowing things happen. Where I work, we recently built a new building and did the same. It's called preparing.
Correct. The best bidders do everything under their control to "expect the unexpected". That's not really my point, though, which was made above.

If someone has very few skills beyond those anyone can do, they shouldn't whine about what they makes.
Agreed completely.

While restaurant servers can't provide an to-the-penny amount,
Which is precisely my point. They don't know exactly how much they are going to be making.

they do know the manner in which their wages will come,
Agreed completely.

therefore, invalidating any complaint they have when things are[n't] what they want.
Let's just say that if I were a waiter, and did a damn good job, and received shit for tips, I wouldn't be very happy about it. Granted, I'm not being forced to be a waiter (and could get another job if I'm not happy with the one I have), but I would still want people to be understanding of how I make my money and to be generous tippers if I'm doing a good job.

But again, my only point is that you acted like everyone knows precisely how much they are going to be making before accepting a job, and that's not always the case. Yes, they know the nature of the job, but they don't know how things are going to play out.

In my case, I make $X/hr, so I know precisely how much I am going to be making. A waitress doesn't have that set dollar amount, since most of their wages come from tips.
 
Common sense says you don't pay someone more than the skills to do their job is worth. If their skills are that low, it's their fault.

If the average minimum wage worker is 35, that say a lot about how they've failed in life.

Very true!

"Minimum Wage" type jobs are not meant to be careers, plain and simple.
 
The market decides that, not some arbitrary, meaningless term like "living wage".

Correct. The market decides that through price discovery. No one is entitled to whatever dollar amount they consider to be a "living wage". They need to make themselves worth more, and they need to not expect "minimum wage" type jobs to be careers.
 
Common sense is if you want workers, pay them a living wage. You get 8 hours a day of their lives and the cost of getting to and from work. The average min wage worker is 35. https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/

Not every job is worth the same, nor is every job worth whatever you consider to be a "living wage". Not every job is 8 hours/day either.

If someone is stuck doing minimum wage jobs at 35, they're very likely doing something wrong.
 
I already admitted that my choice of terminology on the "tipping etiquette" point wasn't the best, so I'm not going to re-hash that.

I've already agreed that the tipper is who decides what is "proper". I've never advocated for forcing people to tip a certain amount, either.

I'm merely suggesting that there are indeed cases where the waitress does a damn good job, yet makes little money because people don't tip very much. That's not the waitress's fault. However, if she's doing a piss poor job and receives hardly any tips (as a reflection of her poor service), then that is entirely her own fault. -- I'm just saying that individual situations can vary like that.

Another point I was trying to express with that terminology is that it's a bit narrow-minded to claim that "I don't know of a single worker that begins a job not knowing what he/she will make. " because waitresses don't know precisely how much they are going to make, as their wages differ each day depending upon how much they receive in tips (and how busy the restaurant is on that particular day).


Correct. The best bidders do everything under their control to "expect the unexpected". That's not really my point, though, which was made above.


Agreed completely.


Which is precisely my point. They don't know exactly how much they are going to be making.


Agreed completely.


Let's just say that if I were a waiter, and did a damn good job, and received shit for tips, I wouldn't be very happy about it. Granted, I'm not being forced to be a waiter (and could get another job if I'm not happy with the one I have), but I would still want people to be understanding of how I make my money and to be generous tippers if I'm doing a good job.

But again, my only point is that you acted like everyone knows precisely how much they are going to be making before accepting a job, and that's not always the case. Yes, they know the nature of the job, but they don't know how things are going to play out.

In my case, I make $X/hr, so I know precisely how much I am going to be making. A waitress doesn't have that set dollar amount, since most of their wages come from tips.

You also called those not tipping the way you thought they should "stingy". Can't have it both ways.

If you consider someone not tipping enough as a problem, you are trying to say how much should be tipped. Again, you can't say it's up to the person receiving service then whine about them not doing what you think they should do.

Every worker starts knowing what he/she will make including waiters/waitresses. There is an hourly wage attached to those positions. A tip isn't a wage. When I look at a menu and see the price, it doesn't include the tip. That means the tip in addition to the price just like the tip is in addition to the known wage of that waiter/waitress.

Good bidders can figure in the unexpected potential. It comes from experience. Are they perfect? No, but good ones can get real close.

Wait staff can't get to the exact penny because their compensation is based on wages. However, tips are not wages. Wages are based on being employed. Tips are based on the quality of service.

If you were a waiter and didn't receive good tips, you have options. You can quit and find something else more to your liking or STFU. Those that stay have no valid argument because it is their choice to do so.

Wait staff does have an hourly wage attached to their job that they know before starting. You are equating wages and tips. They aren't the same.
 
You also called those not tipping the way you thought they should "stingy". Can't have it both ways.
Yes, I have my opinions on how waitresses ought to be tipped. I think that, say, tipping $2 to a very good waitress when the meal costed $50, is a quite "stingy" tip. Other people likely have different opinions on what they consider to be "stingy".

If you consider someone not tipping enough as a problem, you are trying to say how much should be tipped.
Yes, I have opinions on how much they should be tipped if they do a good job; No, I am not attempting to force my opinions onto others through "forced tipping" or some other means. Some restaurants even openly build such gratuity into their pricing.

Again, you can't say it's up to the person receiving service then whine about them not doing what you think they should do.
It is up to the person receiving service, yet I have the right to express my opinion about their tipping amounts. They have the right to express their opinion about my opinion of their tipping amounts...

This has gotten away from the main point, which was that waitresses are an example of people who accept a job without knowing what they are going to be making, because there is no way for them to know how much they are going to be making beyond their very low base wage (prior to tips). You made a blanket statement, and I simply pointed out that, while the blanket statement is GENERALLY correct, it is not ALWAYS correct. There are exceptions.

We've been going back and forth about who has the right to do this that and the other thing, my poor choice of terminology, and other semi-related points, when this whole exchange was really just me making the point that it's not always the case that people know precisely how much money they are going to be making before accepting a job. The rest of this exchange seems to be bickering for the sake of bickering.

Every worker starts knowing what he/she will make including waiters/waitresses.
Now we're back to the main point. I don't agree with your position that they know precisely how much they will be making.

There is an hourly wage attached to those positions.
Correct.

A tip isn't a wage.
I agree that tips technically aren't wages (especially from an employer's standpoint), but from the perspective of the employee, tips are effectively part of their "wages" (or in other words, tips are a rather sizable portion of their take home pay). Sure, one can approximate (to an extent) how much tips generally get received, but it is not a known. Therefore, waitresses don't know precisely how much they are going to be making. ("making" as in "amount of money they take home").

When I look at a menu and see the price, it doesn't include the tip.
Correct.

That means the tip [is?] in addition to the price
Correct.

just like the tip is in addition to the known wage of that waiter/waitress.
Correct, especially from the employer's perspective. However, from the employee's perspective, tips are effectively part of their "wages".

Good bidders can figure in the unexpected potential. It comes from experience. Are they perfect? No, but good ones can get real close.
Correct.

Wait staff can't get to the exact penny because their compensation is based on wages.
???

However, tips are not wages.
See above reply to this.

Wages are based on being employed.
Correct.

Tips are based on the quality of service.
Theoretically, anyway.

If you were a waiter and didn't receive good tips, you have options. You can quit and find something else more to your liking or STFU.
Correct. They could also attempt to persuade people into what they consider to be "better tipping habits", although people might not be persuaded by their efforts. In the end, my opinions are simply my opinions, and yours yours, and the free market will take care of such issues one way or another.

Those that stay have no valid argument because it is their choice to do so.
Yes, they are not being forced to stay.

Wait staff does have an hourly wage attached to their job that they know before starting.
Correct.

You are equating wages and tips. They aren't the same.
No, I am not. You are simply refusing to view this particular bit through the eyes of the employee. While the employee's wages are TECHNICALLY different from their tips (especially through the eyes of the employer and the government), the employee's tips DO make up a rather large portion of their take home pay, so they tend to view their tips as EFFECTIVELY a part of their wages. --- I would view it the same way if I were a waiter.
 
Yes, I have my opinions on how waitresses ought to be tipped. I think that, say, tipping $2 to a very good waitress when the meal costed $50, is a quite "stingy" tip. Other people likely have different opinions on what they consider to be "stingy".


Yes, I have opinions on how much they should be tipped if they do a good job; No, I am not attempting to force my opinions onto others through "forced tipping" or some other means.


It is up to the person receiving service, yet I have the right to express my opinion about their tipping amounts. They have the right to express their opinion about my opinion of their tipping amounts...

This has gotten away from the main point, which was that waitresses are an example of people who accept a job without knowing what they are going to be making, because there is no way for them to know how much they are going to be making beyond their very low base wage (prior to tips). You made a blanket statement, and I simply pointed out that, while the blanket statement is GENERALLY correct, it is not ALWAYS correct. There are exceptions.

We've been going back and forth about who has the right to do this that and the other thing, my poor choice of terminology, and other semi-related points, when this whole exchange was really just me making the point that it's not always the case that people know precisely how much money they are going to be making before accepting a job. The rest of this exchange seems to be bickering for the sake of bickering.


Now we're back to the main point. I don't agree with your position that they know precisely how much they will be making.


Correct.


I agree that tips technically aren't wages (especially from an employer's standpoint), but from the perspective of the employee, tips are effectively part of their "wages" (or in other words, tips are a rather sizable portion of their take home pay). Sure, one can approximate (to an extent) how much tips generally get received, but it is not a known. Therefore, waitresses don't know precisely how much they are going to be making. ("making" as in "amount of money they take home").


Correct.


Correct.


Correct, especially from the employer's perspective. However, from the employee's perspective, tips are effectively part of their "wages".


Correct.


???


See above reply to this.


Correct.


Theoretically, anyway.


Correct. They could also attempt to persuade people into what they consider to be "better tipping habits", although people might not be persuaded by their efforts. In the end, my opinions are simply my opinions, and yours yours, and the free market will take care of such issues one way or another.


Yes, they are not being forced to stay.


Correct.


No, I am not. You are simply refusing to view this particular bit through the eyes of the employee. While the employee's wages are TECHNICALLY different from their tips (especially through the eyes of the employer and the government), the employee's tips DO make up a rather large portion of their take home pay, so they tend to view their tips as EFFECTIVELY a part of their wages. --- I would view it the same way if I were a waiter.

If you say it's up to the person doing the tipping to determine how much, you can't claim it's stingy. That's saying it's not up to the person.

Waitresses do know what they will be making in wages. Tips are not wages. It's not a matter of a technicality of being effectively the same. It's a fact that tips are not wages. Next thing you'll try to argue is that a salary and a bonus are the same thing.

"Better tipping habits"? There you go again making a determination based on something you said is none of your business unless you're the one doing the tipping.

Someone not being forced to stay that stays has no argument about anything related to their compensation. It's like those wanting forgiveness for student loans whining when they have to start paying back what they agreed to pay back at a rate/amount they knew they'd have to pay.

Tips can't be considered wages. They're paid for two different reason. While they are part of the overall compensation, they aren't the same technically or effectively.
 
From the Echo Chamber Thread...


Living wage? Why would someone work their ass off and not get paid enough for rent, gas, food, and necessities of life? It costs money to go to work.

Hello Gonzomin,

Precisely.

We are eventually going to have a Universal Basic Income because AI automation is going to eliminate so many jobs there just won't be enough jobs to go around.
What Politalker doesn't realize is that it is the very same PRICE CONTROLS which he supports (ie, "minimum wage") that are directly causing such shortages. Like I said earlier, price controls always lead to shortages of some sort.

Wealth inequality will continue to become more and more extreme until the situation is just ridiculous.
What is "wealth inequality" and why is it a problem? How do you suggest making wealth "equal" or even "more equal" and keeping it in such a state?

A few people are going to have most of the wealth, a few more will have jobs that pay OK, and most people will not be able to find work.
...due to the SHORTAGES being created by PRICE CONTROLS such as minimum wage legislation... Nothing is stopping you from acquiring a skill of some sort to increase your value to employers. Nothing is stopping you from running a business of your own.

The only way we can have a functioning country and a vibrant economy is for the government to just give people a regular income check for doing nothing at all.
The USA has been a functioning country for quite a long while now. Your price controls are directly causing the issues that you are complaining about.

And guess who is going to pay for that. You got it, the rich! We are going to have to tax the rich to give everybody free money. That is the only logical way our economy will be able to work.
It works just fine as long as you let it be... Let the market dictate pricing... When you implement price controls, you get these issues which you are complaining about as a result. --- But this is a good example of Socialism though. It is theft of wealth. It does not create any wealth of its own. The economy will not work this way.

And by the time that happens, the rich will be so rich they will totally have the money to do that. And they will STILL be rich after paying enough taxes to support that.
No they won't. And what makes you think that they will support that? They have the ability to take their money elsewhere.

Now, in the meantime, until that happens, and it will happen gradually, we are going to have to address the fact that jobs are being downsized,
Again, you are supporting the very thing which is creating these shortages... PRICE CONTROLS.

and people are making less and less money.
Speaking for myself, my wages have increased literally every single year that I have been working at my current company (almost 7 years now), and the LOWEST yearly increase that I have received thus far was a 3.5% increase. I wouldn't exactly call that "less and less"...

Sure, there are plenty of jobs, but most jobs don't pay very much. Here is an example. A long time ago doctors did all the treatments. They actually fought the idea of having nurses when it was first proposed. They lost that fight. So now it is accepted that nursing is a job. But they wanted nurses to have a lot of education.

Well, that's fine, but it wasn't cost effective to have nurses doing all the busy work. Instead of hiring two nurses to do all the chores doctors once did, it is more cost effective to have just one nurse and break out the nurse's duties into more menial chores, and hire a lower paid worker for that. That way, the rich who own all the big businesses make more money by cutting expenses such as the cost of labor. So now we have doctors and nurses and lots of other more specialized jobs that nurses once did. Such as phlebotomy, for example. If you get blood drawn, that's probably not going to be a nurse doing that. It is a lower paid position, somebody who is trained only to draw blood, and doesn't have to pass all the schooling and certifications that a higher paid nurse does.

That process of breaking out the more mundane tasks of a job is going on in every industry. Not just medical. The result is fewer well-paid positions, and more lower-paid positions. The rich make more money, and on down the food chain, those at the bottom don't make very much. So people can go to a one or two year program and qualify for one of these specialized jobs, and they get paid 25K - 30K, and not much benefits. They don't need a degree to do that. But these jobs are not something that makes it very easy to buy a home or save for retirement. We get lots of people working, but the difference in income level gets larger and larger. And with it, so does wealth inequality.

The people who make these decisions to do this kind of thing sit on corporate boards, own most of the stock and make LOTS of money, but those in the lower echelon work decades just to pay off their education, and then they can try to save for a down payment on a low priced home. This is occurring later and later in life. Home ownership is down. More homes are owned by big corporations and rented out. Without home ownership, workers don't have much wealth to hand down to the next generation.

Government needs to step in and establish a base line to help working people achieve home ownership. That is the key to minimal wealth and the American Dream.

You ain't got no home, you ain't got nuthin.
Government is what CREATED the problem (through the implementation of price controls), and you expect them to FIX it by implementing even MORE price controls??

That's why the minimum wage must be set at a certain level, so that higher trained positions get paid more, and are more able to achieve the American Dream.
Increasing minimum wage only increases shortages. Minimum Wage puts many people out of work, and reduces many people's total hours worked. It reduces supply, it increases demand, it increases prices. Price controls do not work.

Otherwise, capitalism is totally in the very slow process of separating the haves from the have nots.
Capitalism works through price discovery. It naturally adjusts to increases and decreases in supply and demand. It fixes itself. It works. It does not create the shortages that price controls create.

Wealth inequality will become too extreme, and we will have a system which resembles the lords and the serfs, where the lords own everything, the serfs own nothing, and are at their mercy. This does not meet the concept of the United States, promoting the general welfare and promoting tranquility.
YOU are the one who wants such a system (Marxist Oligarchical rule). I prefer our current Federated Republic myself...
 
Also from the Echo Chamber thread...

What FDR intended is his opinion. That is not necessarily the intention of a majority of Congress that had to pass the bill.

The first minimum wage in 1938 was 25 cents. I wonder if that was a living wage?

If that wage was increased annually to keep up with inflation it would have increased 1716.3%, or to $4.54 in 2019. Is that a living wage?

I wonder where this strange myth comes from that says FDR dictated policy or that the 25 cents FDR accepted as the first minimum wage lived up to his intention that it be a living wage?

Hello Flash,

That's a good argument. Makes it sound like we should drop the Minimum Wage to 4.54. Is that a position you're prepared to take?
Heck yes!!! In fact, I'm prepared to go even further and completely eliminate the minimum wage altogether. It is a price control. Price controls do not work.

FDR took what he could get, even though it may not have been what he wanted. Nobody is going to pay rent, transportation, food and health care on $4.54.
At the very least, it would be insanely difficult. A job for $4.54/hr is not intended to accomplish those things though.

President Obama wanted affordable universal health care. What he could get was a far cry less.
He wanted price controls. He wanted to compel people to purchase health insurance (and even particular coverages).

We start off with whatever we can get, and then we make it better.

That's the human way. We began as hunter gatherers. Now we have air conditioning, food stores, airliners and computers.

We started off with what we could get, and then we made it better.

Cavemen had no wage at all. There was no money. Our economic system is not fixed in stone. It is something we created and something we can change; something we MUST change.

We cannot look back and claim: "That's the way we always did it."

We must look forward and say: "What can we do to make it better?"

$15 minimum wage. That's what we can do.
All these good things you mention were a DIRECT RESULT OF CAPITALISM... which you are railing against, and the problems you mention are a direct result of price controls and regulations, yet you want to implement even MORE price controls and MORE regulations??
 
Also from the echo chamber thread...

Hello Flash,

You keep talking about what was intended, and as the architect of the New Deal, I think FDR is the most credible voice on what was intended.

We was intended is one thing; What we have is another.

Republicans usually argue about what the minimum wage was intended to be,
The minimum wage was intended to be a price control.

and their vision is quite different from what FDR said. When Republicans imagine what the minimum wage was intended to be, they do not have FDR's intentions in mind at all. They are not respecting people who simply perform simple work. FDR was pretty clear when he said: "I mean the wages of decent living."

Is there something which is unclear about: "I mean the wages of decent living?"
Yes, there is. FDR does not quantify what he considers to be "decent living"...

Is there some part of that which could possibly be construed to mean: "The minimum wage is not intended to be a living wage?"

NO! That's the exact OPPOSITE!
It could be construed to mean many things, since it was never quantified.

That doesn't sound like "the wages of decent living" to me at all. That sounds like trying to rewrite history and change it to what the rich owners of business want it to say. And it should not go unsaid that most owners of large corporations whose workers are forced to rely upon government assistance also make the same wrong Republican kinds of statements which are just not true.
You are supporting price controls, which are the very causes of the problems which you complain about. Price controls cause shortages.
 
Republican's idea of the minimum wage....

"I would pay you even less- If I could"!

Naturally they are opposed to it, and I just explained why!

People! Hateful politics is not rocket science!
 
Republican's idea of the minimum wage....
My idea of the minimum wage is that it is a price control.

"I would pay you even less- If I could"!
The goal of any business is to maximize profits. Minimizing expenses is part of what it takes to achieve that goal. Payroll is one such expense. People get paid according to the value that they bring to the company.

Naturally they are opposed to it, and I just explained why!
I oppose minimum wage laws. They are price controls. Price controls inevitably lead to shortages of some sort.

People! Hateful politics is not rocket science!
YOU are the one full of hate, not me.
 
Transported from the Echo Chamber...

The point is that what FDR intended is irrelevant. Saying he did not intend it to be a living wage is of little concern to conservatives. It is a decision to make today without regard to FDR.
You seem to get it. Conservatives don't give a damn what FDR intended or didn't intend. They care that the federal government is implementing price controls and regulations.

I know small business owners who have to reduce worker hours even at or near the minimum wage. They could not afford to pay $15 per hour and the government should not force them and their employees out of a job; then, none of them would be receiving any wages.
This is one example of the "shortages" that price controls (such as the minimum wage) cause. Less work hours, less available jobs, etc...
 
Back
Top