My shop actually makes more money through their back issues now than they did when I worked there in the ’90s. They've got 140, 150 long boxes and are constantly having to restock.
I wonder if those numbers will increase as more people figure out digital and no longer want all those back issues cluttering their closets?
And compsolut brings up some great examples of where stores do work well over online. One of the stores I mentioned earlier does a booming back issue business (but a lot of that *is* from those ebay sales, so I don't know if it's six of one/half dozen of another in his case). He's got a whole room devoted to 50cent and sometimes 25cent books which is always worth the visit.
Here's the problem let's say minium wage in my area is $9.00 and I make fifteen (based on my skill set, or time invested in the business I work for). If minimum wage jumps to fifteen then my wage should increase also. Because I have a higher and more valuable skill set than a new fry cook.
Minimum wage is for entry level positions without a skill set or education base to justify much else. These are almost exclusively part time jobs (now less than 30 hours a week) for employees that are at the start of their work life (college or highschoolers).
By raising wage rates you effectively hurt every small business in the area, even if they have no minimum wage employees.
Minimum wage is for entry level positions without a skill set or education base to justify much else. These are almost exclusively part time jobs (now less than 30 hours a week) for employees that are at the start of their work life (college or highschoolers).
That's good in theory, but not always true in practice. Since the Recession, most of those working minimum wages are those who haven't been able to obtain work in fields that they've been trained for -- in fact, have been most likely downsized from those better paying jobs and have been scrambling to find something -- anything -- to keep paying the bills. And a lot of those are trying to work two or more jobs at the same time, provided their employers give them rational schedules where they can arrange to juggle their time appropriately. (Many employers don't, but schedule workers to come in even if they ultimately won't need them for that day.) I speak from some experience here, having lost two decent paying jobs since the Recession and now have to scrounge through miserable hours and minimum wage, hoping I can still keep things afloat.
And for the record: the minimum wage was never intended for just entry level positions or part-time high school kids working after school at their local Mickey D's -- it was instituted to give everybody a chance at earning a decent wage for their labors, and to keep them above the poverty level; a living wage. And in his own words, FDR defined this: "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living."
For what it's worth, raising the minimum wage doesn't improve the economy. In fact, Switzerland has NO minimum wage requirement and they're running an average unemployment rate of around 2%. While countries with higher minimum wage rates, such as Greece, see very high levels of unemployment, often in the high teens or twenties. And as wages are pushed higher artificially, lower skilled workers are usually worse off. An employer doesn't want to pay a premium for someone that's inexperienced.
One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor without any such consequences.
As for a "living wage," the employer is not hiring people in order to acquire dependents and become their meal ticket. He or she is hiring them for what they can produce. Are some people not able to produce much? I'm sure there is little to no demand for high school dropout swith no skills and no experience. Are they worth $15 an hour? Of course not, and small businesses will be the collateral damage in another social-economic experiment gone wrong in the name of social justice.
Everyone is entitled to make enough to support themselves. Many people with little or no skills have families that need to be supported. Also, many people without skills aren't dropouts or deadbeats. They are a product of their environment. People who live in rural areas or the inner city typically experience food deserts and minimal to no options to rise above their current status. Ask yourself the last time you saw a kid delivering a newspaper. Paper routes are jobs adults take to pay the bills. Fast food and chain stores are blue chip companies that use taxpayer money to subsidize salary through welfare.
The earning gap goes beyond comic shops and small business.
Everyone is entitled to make enough to support themselves.
I'm not clear why anyone would agree with this first statement. How do you figure? Where is this "entitlement" guaranteed? Is a tenth grader with no work experience who lives at home entitled to earn nearly $32,000 a year at his first full time job ($15 per hour at 40 hours per week)? Is an unskilled homeless person able to produce a profit at that minimum rate for any employer? $15 per hour is quite a handsome paycheck in most of rural America, though not necessarily San Fransisco. It is far above "entry level" by any standard.
Many people with little or no skills have families that need to be supported.
This is no one's fault but their own and small business aren't hiring a family, nor are they a meal ticket. Yes people with families need to support their family, but artificially raising wages to meet some heart-felt criteria is punitive to small businesses. Prices on goods will rise across the board and many business will close. Paying someone $600 a week to serve french fries is obscenely generous and actually quite unfair to those that have earned college degrees or gained work experience in order to reach a $32K salary in chosen fields.
Everyone is entitled to make enough to support themselves.
I'm not clear why anyone would agree with this first statement. How do you figure? Where is this "entitlement" guaranteed? Is a tenth grader with no work experience who lives at home entitled to earn nearly $32,000 a year at his first full time job ($15 per hour at 40 hours per week)? Is an unskilled homeless person able to produce a profit at that minimum rate for any employer? $15 per hour is quite a handsome paycheck in most of rural America, though not necessarily San Fransisco. It is far above "entry level" by any standard.
Many people with little or no skills have families that need to be supported.
This is no one's fault but their own and small business aren't hiring a family, nor are they a meal ticket. Yes people with families need to support their family, but artificially raising wages to meet some heart-felt criteria is punitive to small businesses. Prices on goods will rise across the board and many business will close. Paying someone $600 a week to serve french fries is obscenely generous and actually quite unfair to those that have earned college degrees or gained work experience in order to reach a $32K salary in chosen fields.
Most high schooler are not supporting themselves and require working papers and have limitations on their hours and wages. My 11th grader cannot legally work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. This point is moot. Also, the "entitlement" of making a living wage does not need to be "guaranteed" anywhere. Right and proper things do not need to be in the constitution, the Bible, or the law books to be right and proper. Descent, mature people understand this. Additionally, I have 2 degrees and make a hair over 32k .The same goes for my wife. We barely make ends meet. We live in Long Island. Our salaries are inadequate. If you live somewhere, the jobs there should pay enough to allow you to continue living there. And that thing I work for, my salary, is my meal ticket. Its how I pay for the food our kids eat. So my employer is my meal ticket. I don't believe you are saying small business hires people to give them meager salaries in the hopes that they or their families suffer.
Many people lack skills because of a plethora of reasons. Most are not their own fault. Some people are lucky and born into wealthy families. Some people are not so lucky and born into poor families. To say someone born to a poor family with less than adequate health care, food, and public schooling is at fault is akin to saying someone born to a family with all the advantages American life has to offer did a good job choosing a preferable uterus.
Small businesses get the pressure for the same reason the middle class do; big business reap the majority of the rewards while the rest of use get crumbs.
Anyway, argument by selective observation is a logical fallacy. The above 2 cherry picked comments are out of context from the initial point being made.
The bottom line is if someone works a 40 hour all of their needs should be met. This is not to say all able bodied adults in a family should not work. They should. But blaming the poor, uneducated, undereducated people of America for rising prices and business closures is ludicrous. There is enough money to go around. The problem is most of it is in the hands of a relatively few families and individuals. And they don't like to share (unless it invokes a subsidy or tax break).
"When did the American dream become this pathway to indentured servitude — this economic death spiral where workers get paid next to nothing, so they can only afford to buy next to nothing, so businesses are forced to sell cheaper and cheaper shit? Walmart employees can only afford to shop at Walmart. McDonald's workers can only afford to eat at McDonald's."
"And look, even if you're not moved by the "don't be such a heartless prick" argument, consider the fact that most fast food workers — whose average age by the way now is 29, I'm not talking about kids — are on some form of public assistance. Which is not surprising. When even working people can't make enough to live, they take money from the government. In the form of food stamps. School lunches. Housing assistance. Day care. This is the welfare that conservatives hate. But they never stop to think, if we raise the minimum wage and force McDonald's and Walmart to pay their employees enough to eat, we the taxpayers wouldn't have to pick up the slack."
"This is the question the right has to answer. Do you want smaller government with less handouts, or do you want a low minimum wage? Because you cannot have both. If Colonel Sanders isn't going to pay the lady behind the counter enough to live on, then Uncle Sam has to. And I, for one, am getting a little tired of helping highly profitable companies pay their workers."
Wow. The level of privilege in this thread is staggering. And let's be real here, how fair is it to say that people with earned degrees are more deserving of higher salaries than those that serve fries - when it's those "fries" jobs that are being relied on for kids to make money to go to school? I'm sure those kids and other people working in the service industry know quite well that it may take two jobs to make ends meet/to get ahead. To equate it with them sitting their expecting smugly some kind of entitlement is the thinking of the privileged. Combining this thread with how certain posters "talk" in other comic related threads, it's no wonder I find them infuriating. Haha.
As a young professional (28) who graduated from college with student loan debt, has a wife (student loan debt) and a 16 month old - who came from middle class families (at best) . . . I do take exception to a person who has little to no drive to better themselves being offered a $15/hr job flipping burgers. Now, let me say that I also believe that everyone has a right to be able to earn a healthy wage. I will also say that a living wage is different in different locations. A living wage in Manhattan or San Francisco are certainly different than a living wage in Eau Claire, WI or Clinton, IA. So the one size fits all mentality certainly doesn't apply (in my eyes).
A right to earn a healthy wage is not the same as a right to a healthy wage. I worked as a ball boy at a golf course (not glamorous, and VERY low pay), cleaned toilets, mowed grass (summer time), refereed volleyball in college, and worked my butt off in the classroom to get a few small scholarships. I knew that at every one of those jobs, I was not supposed to support a family, nor even myself as a living wage. Those were to give me skills, and a work history to get to a point that I could obtain a full-time job that would support me and a family if I chose.
Also, I would like to point out that I am compassionate to those who have barriers to employment - in my city there is a work center for the blind, as well as numerous entities that hire wonderful people that have either/both physical or mental handicaps. Their pay is of course at a lower wage, as their skillets dictate, and I support making sure they have a livable wage - as most are doing everything they can to succeed facing adversity.
I have very little compassion for someone who has no barriers to employment or education, aside from being lazy or ignorant. In this nation everyone is given the opportunity to receive an education. Even in inner city schools. These teachers care the same or more than most others (I should know, my mother in law teaches at an inner city school). The fundamental difference seems to be that there is an expectation that people will be given what they need. Why should I have spent $50,000 + (not including housing and food) and worked hard for 4 years in college to graduate, hoping to earn $13-15/hr in a professional setting starting off - just for someone to want more, and be "owed it"?
I am sorry, but there needs to be an equal balance. You earn, you get it. If you are unable to earn it, due to a handicap (physical, mental, etc.) then you should be taken care of and allowed to live comfortably and safely. Why are people so opposed to learning how to be a plumber, electrician, etc? If I was in any other career than what I have chosen, I would be in a trade skill.
Why are people so opposed to learning how to be a plumber, electrician, etc? If I was in any other career than what I have chosen, I would be in a trade skill.
My brother has a trade skill. He's an ex-Marine who became a machinist, and worked at that job for several years. He lost that job because of downsizing during the Recession. Since then, he has not been able to get another job utilizing that skill -- they just haven't been available. He wound up flipping burgers at minimum wage, working irregular hours. Last I heard, that situation hasn't changed. (There may also be some ageism involved here, as my brother is well into Middle Age and employers like 'em young.)
So -- is my brother merely feeling 'entitled' because he wants to maintain a living wage? Because he suddenly can't get a job at the trade for which he'd trained? Or should he just 'suck it up' and accept working for less then the costs of his rent and food expenses so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who think that he's just not applying himself the way that they would.
My brother has a trade skill. He's an ex-Marine who became a machinist, and worked at that job for several years. He lost that job because of downsizing during the Recession. Since then, he has not been able to get another job utilizing that skill -- they just haven't been available. He wound up flipping burgers at minimum wage, working irregular hours. Last I heard, that situation hasn't changed. (There may also be some ageism involved here, as my brother is well into Middle Age and employers like 'em young.)
So -- is my brother merely feeling 'entitled' because he wants to maintain a living wage? Because he suddenly can't get a job at the trade for which he'd trained? Or should he just 'suck it up' and accept working for less then the costs of his rent and food expenses so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who think that he's just not applying himself the way that they would.
It pains me to hear about situations like this, and I am sure there is some ageism at play. This topic also doesn't change the fact that this nation does not take care of its veterans the way they should. I understand that it can be hard to uproot oneself, or a family - but in many cases opportunity means making a hard decision to relocate for that opportunity. In many cases people like this are often the silent/quiet voices in these debates. I will pray that he can find stable and quality paying work.
My brother has a trade skill. He's an ex-Marine who became a machinist, and worked at that job for several years. He lost that job because of downsizing during the Recession. Since then, he has not been able to get another job utilizing that skill -- they just haven't been available. He wound up flipping burgers at minimum wage, working irregular hours. Last I heard, that situation hasn't changed. (There may also be some ageism involved here, as my brother is well into Middle Age and employers like 'em young.)
So -- is my brother merely feeling 'entitled' because he wants to maintain a living wage? Because he suddenly can't get a job at the trade for which he'd trained? Or should he just 'suck it up' and accept working for less then the costs of his rent and food expenses so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who think that he's just not applying himself the way that they would.
It pains me to hear about situations like this, and I am sure there is some ageism at play. This topic also doesn't change the fact that this nation does not take care of its veterans the way they should. I understand that it can be hard to uproot oneself, or a family - but in many cases opportunity means making a hard decision to relocate for that opportunity. In many cases people like this are often the silent/quiet voices in these debates. I will pray that he can find stable and quality paying work.
The veteran status has very little to do with it. Construction trades (and associated design consultants) were nigh obliterated during the Recession - near 50% unemployment among architects in Chicago. It's not that there was suddenly a lack of need for facility updates, repairs and replacements. It was investors refusing to let go of stockpiled cash in order to fund those things (or anything else, for that matter). From what I can see, vertical construction is far and away the best investment there is in making a healthy economy by touching so many facets of of the economy - design professionals, manufacturing, transportation, construction labor, job-site adjacent restaurants (and often motels) and an improved property tax base. Roads provide for some of that, but its much more limited since most of the materials require limited processing and have a very short term opportunity for payback, given the constant repair cycle.
I wonder if part of the answer isn't what we're talking about with regard to wages being commensurate to where people live. A McDonald's employee living in San Francisco or New York or L.A. would probably be justified in asking for a $15/hr. minimum wage, as opposed to say, someone in Boise or Omaha, or to take it a step further, a really small town in say, Kentucky or Mississippi.
I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say "If you can't afford it - move" but that's not really an option if you have family in the area. I would say a good number of us who started out working minimum-wage jobs still lived at home when we did. It's also not realistic to ask someone who grew up in New York to move to Meridian, MS, so they can flip burgers and live.
Maybe the focus shouldn't be on a "minimum" wage across the board, but a "living" wage based on where you're working. $32k a year in San Francisco certainly wouldn't be the same as $32k in Paducah, Kentucky, for example, so perhaps base pay wages could be adjusted to reflect that.
I've been biting my tongue at some of the comments here, but I'm standing by my decision not to engage on that level. I do think minimum wage should be based on cost of living, but it would certainly make things more complicated, and I think it would be much harder to become law. How minutely should it be broken down? By state? By county? By city? Politicians don't like complicated math—it doesn't make for strong talking points.
I tend to agree - living wage is pretty clearly something that needs to be tied to cost of living within a region. Certainly, as a professional, I've negotiated using cost of living when considering relocation to another region.
As far as the granularity. There are already other compensation programs that are broken down by county (Prevailing Wage rates). I don't think that you can go much more detailed than that.
Advantage - live in a low cost rural area and you end up making more, but you have to drive everywhere for everything from work to going to buy bananas.
I've been biting my tongue at some of the comments here, but I'm standing by my decision not to engage on that level. I do think minimum wage should be based on cost of living, but it would certainly make things more complicated, and I think it would be much harder to become law. How minutely should it be broken down? By state? By county? By city? Politicians don't like complicated math—it doesn't make for strong talking points.
And given the changing nature of work, it wouldn't be too strange to have someone living in Paducah, KY but working for a San Francisco company...so would they make California dollars while living a small-town Kentucky lifestyle?
I've been biting my tongue at some of the comments here, but I'm standing by my decision not to engage on that level. I do think minimum wage should be based on cost of living, but it would certainly make things more complicated, and I think it would be much harder to become law. How minutely should it be broken down? By state? By county? By city? Politicians don't like complicated math—it doesn't make for strong talking points.
And given the changing nature of work, it wouldn't be too strange to have someone living in Paducah, KY but working for a San Francisco company...so would they make California dollars while living a small-town Kentucky lifestyle?
Well, odds are, if you're working off-site, you're probably not in a minimum-wage position.
I've been biting my tongue at some of the comments here, but I'm standing by my decision not to engage on that level. I do think minimum wage should be based on cost of living, but it would certainly make things more complicated, and I think it would be much harder to become law. How minutely should it be broken down? By state? By county? By city? Politicians don't like complicated math—it doesn't make for strong talking points.
And given the changing nature of work, it wouldn't be too strange to have someone living in Paducah, KY but working for a San Francisco company...so would they make California dollars while living a small-town Kentucky lifestyle?
Well, odds are, if you're working off-site, you're probably not in a minimum-wage position.
True to a point. Not all minimum-wage jobs involve flipping burgers. Data entry, phone answering services, etc. can all be done remotely, and (speaking from experience) don't pay much beyond minimum if that. I worked with a person here in AZ who did work of that nature for a California company, which is why I brought it up. California wages on an Arizona lifestyle.
I've been biting my tongue at some of the comments here, but I'm standing by my decision not to engage on that level. I do think minimum wage should be based on cost of living, but it would certainly make things more complicated, and I think it would be much harder to become law. How minutely should it be broken down? By state? By county? By city? Politicians don't like complicated math—it doesn't make for strong talking points.
And given the changing nature of work, it wouldn't be too strange to have someone living in Paducah, KY but working for a San Francisco company...so would they make California dollars while living a small-town Kentucky lifestyle?
Well, odds are, if you're working off-site, you're probably not in a minimum-wage position.
True to a point. Not all minimum-wage jobs involve flipping burgers. Data entry, phone answering services, etc. can all be done remotely, and (speaking from experience) don't pay much beyond minimum if that. I worked with a person here in AZ who did work of that nature for a California company, which is why I brought it up. California wages on an Arizona lifestyle.
I thought most of that type of work was outsourced where that company in California hires a company in Indiana (or India) to do that work for them. Is that not the case?
Many believe that raising the minimum wage has greater positive employment effects, they believe there is little to no tradeoff in the government artificially boosting wages. Most of the people that think that, though, are not economists. And while economists may seem to disagree on quite a bit, there actually is something of a consensus regarding the minimum wage. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw has a list on his blog of fourteen issues where economists have unanimous agreement. The statement that "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers" garnered 79% agreement . http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html
One more reason why economics education is so important.
While I agree that it's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to raise a family on entry level pay, I'm convinced that such jobs were never intended to be careers, but simply stepping stones for low skilled workers to gain entry into the labor force. The fact that the economy is now providing no other stones on which to step is not the fault of businesses. Sometimes a guy needs to get a roommate to make ends meet, right?
Many believe that raising the minimum wage has greater positive employment effects, they believe there is little to no tradeoff in the government artificially boosting wages. Most of the people that think that, though, are not economists. And while economists may seem to disagree on quite a bit, there actually is something of a consensus regarding the minimum wage. Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw has a list on his blog of fourteen issues where economists have unanimous agreement. The statement that "a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers" garnered 79% agreement . http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/02/news-flash-economists-agree.html
One more reason why economics education is so important.
While I agree that it's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to raise a family on entry level pay, I'm convinced that such jobs were never intended to be careers, but simply stepping stones for low skilled workers to gain entry into the labor force. The fact that the economy is now providing no other stones on which to step is not the fault of businesses. Sometimes a guy needs to get a roommate to make ends meet, right?
7. Local and state governments should eliminate subsidies to professional sports franchises.
One of these things is not like the other... This one struck me as funny and true.
I thought most of that type of work was outsourced where that company in California hires a company in Indiana (or India) to do that work for them. Is that not the case?
Yes and no. While I realize my example is not the norm, I get the sense that it's becoming more and more the norm in the 'traditional' workplace, where a worker, unskilled or skilled, is no longer employed by any company, but is in essence their own company.
Or as I tell people: "I'm not in the business of (whatever company I'm working for), I'm in the Torchsong business, because at the end of the day, it's the only company I *have* to be loyal to."
We have a guy where I work now who basically shows up for six-month stretches (because we pay well) and makes enough to move back to where he actually lives on the cheap. Does this every few years or so. And he does great work, so we bring him back on. This is not a high-tech knowledge worker type position - he's a receptionist. But he's a receptionist who's seen the world a couple times over, whereas I went to Canada once. :)
Sometimes a guy needs to get a roommate to make ends meet, right?
Or to not move out of their parents' basement.
That comment isn't half so flip as it sounds -- there a lot of households that are now becoming multi-generational, housing not only grown children but grandparents and extended families as well, in order to help everyone make expenses. This is a return to pre-WWII housing conventions.
After college I lived with my mom for a good 5-6 years before striking out on my own. It was just the two of us, seemed silly to waste what little $$ I made at the paper on rent, I helped around with household chores and the like, and it didn't really cramp my style that much - you need to have a style before it can be cramped.
Currently I live about a mile away from my wife's in-laws and her brother and his wife. We might as well all be under one roof as much as they all see each other.
It's really only a stigma if you believe too much of the press or decide to let it get to you. You have to do what feels right and what *is* right for you in the long run.
I just read where labor unions in Los Angeles (that actually pushed for the minimum wage hike to $15) now want to add an exemption before the law passes so union companies can negotiate lower wages for their employees.
The minimum wage argument shows how much trouble the economy is in.
The recovery from the 08 housing market crash has not trickled down to the lower wage earners - lots of part time work at lower hourly rates than they made 7 years ago.
Can you blame the business owners for fighting a minimum wage increase ? No. Most of the small employers I know barely make more money then their employees, yet they have their capital tied up and take all the risk.
Can you blame workers for wanting to make a wage they can live on ? No. I don't know how anyone in a large urban area with high housing costs survives on anything near minimum wage.
I think our fundamental belief that we can lift everyone in the world up to a more traditional "U.S." standard of living through more trade, globalization, offshoring, etc. without impacting our economy, particularly those at the lowest runs of the economic ladder, is a flawed concept.
Our lack of domestic manufacturing is bad. Our offshoring of support jobs is bad. Our desire to continually import labor that we really don't need is bad. Our inability to compete with other countries that pay $1.00 per hour with no health benefits, no retirement and no interest in the well being of their laborers is bad. Our inability to compete with other countries that destroy their own environment in the pursuit of short term economic efficiency is bad.
To bad I don't know what the answer is.
(But I think reading the latest issue of the Avengers sure can't hurt!)
Even if you did half of the country would disagree with you and call you "insert political slur" mouthpiece. But the other half would pay you megadollars for your solution; so it's not a bad trade off.
Even if you did half of the country would disagree with you and call you "insert political slur" mouthpiece. But the other half would pay you megadollars for your solution; so it's not a bad trade off.
Comments
And compsolut brings up some great examples of where stores do work well over online. One of the stores I mentioned earlier does a booming back issue business (but a lot of that *is* from those ebay sales, so I don't know if it's six of one/half dozen of another in his case). He's got a whole room devoted to 50cent and sometimes 25cent books which is always worth the visit.
Minimum wage is for entry level positions without a skill set or education base to justify much else. These are almost exclusively part time jobs (now less than 30 hours a week) for employees that are at the start of their work life (college or highschoolers).
By raising wage rates you effectively hurt every small business in the area, even if they have no minimum wage employees.
And for the record: the minimum wage was never intended for just entry level positions or part-time high school kids working after school at their local Mickey D's -- it was instituted to give everybody a chance at earning a decent wage for their labors, and to keep them above the poverty level; a living wage. And in his own words, FDR defined this: "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living."
One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor without any such consequences.
As for a "living wage," the employer is not hiring people in order to acquire dependents and become their meal ticket. He or she is hiring them for what they can produce. Are some people not able to produce much? I'm sure there is little to no demand for high school dropout swith no skills and no experience. Are they worth $15 an hour? Of course not, and small businesses will be the collateral damage in another social-economic experiment gone wrong in the name of social justice.
Too bad.
Ask yourself the last time you saw a kid delivering a newspaper. Paper routes are jobs adults take to pay the bills.
Fast food and chain stores are blue chip companies that use taxpayer money to subsidize salary through welfare.
The earning gap goes beyond comic shops and small business.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=D8wiudhAhaA
Many people lack skills because of a plethora of reasons. Most are not their own fault. Some people are lucky and born into wealthy families. Some people are not so lucky and born into poor families. To say someone born to a poor family with less than adequate health care, food, and public schooling is at fault is akin to saying someone born to a family with all the advantages American life has to offer did a good job choosing a preferable uterus.
Small businesses get the pressure for the same reason the middle class do; big business reap the majority of the rewards while the rest of use get crumbs.
Anyway, argument by selective observation is a logical fallacy. The above 2 cherry picked comments are out of context from the initial point being made.
The bottom line is if someone works a 40 hour all of their needs should be met. This is not to say all able bodied adults in a family should not work. They should. But blaming the poor, uneducated, undereducated people of America for rising prices and business closures is ludicrous. There is enough money to go around. The problem is most of it is in the hands of a relatively few families and individuals. And they don't like to share (unless it invokes a subsidy or tax break).
________________________________________________________________________
"When did the American dream become this pathway to indentured servitude — this economic death spiral where workers get paid next to nothing, so they can only afford to buy next to nothing, so businesses are forced to sell cheaper and cheaper shit? Walmart employees can only afford to shop at Walmart. McDonald's workers can only afford to eat at McDonald's."
"And look, even if you're not moved by the "don't be such a heartless prick" argument, consider the fact that most fast food workers — whose average age by the way now is 29, I'm not talking about kids — are on some form of public assistance. Which is not surprising. When even working people can't make enough to live, they take money from the government. In the form of food stamps. School lunches. Housing assistance. Day care. This is the welfare that conservatives hate. But they never stop to think, if we raise the minimum wage and force McDonald's and Walmart to pay their employees enough to eat, we the taxpayers wouldn't have to pick up the slack."
"This is the question the right has to answer. Do you want smaller government with less handouts, or do you want a low minimum wage? Because you cannot have both. If Colonel Sanders isn't going to pay the lady behind the counter enough to live on, then Uncle Sam has to. And I, for one, am getting a little tired of helping highly profitable companies pay their workers."
A right to earn a healthy wage is not the same as a right to a healthy wage. I worked as a ball boy at a golf course (not glamorous, and VERY low pay), cleaned toilets, mowed grass (summer time), refereed volleyball in college, and worked my butt off in the classroom to get a few small scholarships. I knew that at every one of those jobs, I was not supposed to support a family, nor even myself as a living wage. Those were to give me skills, and a work history to get to a point that I could obtain a full-time job that would support me and a family if I chose.
Also, I would like to point out that I am compassionate to those who have barriers to employment - in my city there is a work center for the blind, as well as numerous entities that hire wonderful people that have either/both physical or mental handicaps. Their pay is of course at a lower wage, as their skillets dictate, and I support making sure they have a livable wage - as most are doing everything they can to succeed facing adversity.
I have very little compassion for someone who has no barriers to employment or education, aside from being lazy or ignorant. In this nation everyone is given the opportunity to receive an education. Even in inner city schools. These teachers care the same or more than most others (I should know, my mother in law teaches at an inner city school). The fundamental difference seems to be that there is an expectation that people will be given what they need. Why should I have spent $50,000 + (not including housing and food) and worked hard for 4 years in college to graduate, hoping to earn $13-15/hr in a professional setting starting off - just for someone to want more, and be "owed it"?
I am sorry, but there needs to be an equal balance. You earn, you get it. If you are unable to earn it, due to a handicap (physical, mental, etc.) then you should be taken care of and allowed to live comfortably and safely. Why are people so opposed to learning how to be a plumber, electrician, etc? If I was in any other career than what I have chosen, I would be in a trade skill.
So -- is my brother merely feeling 'entitled' because he wants to maintain a living wage? Because he suddenly can't get a job at the trade for which he'd trained? Or should he just 'suck it up' and accept working for less then the costs of his rent and food expenses so as not to offend the sensibilities of those who think that he's just not applying himself the way that they would.
I know the knee-jerk reaction is to say "If you can't afford it - move" but that's not really an option if you have family in the area. I would say a good number of us who started out working minimum-wage jobs still lived at home when we did. It's also not realistic to ask someone who grew up in New York to move to Meridian, MS, so they can flip burgers and live.
Maybe the focus shouldn't be on a "minimum" wage across the board, but a "living" wage based on where you're working. $32k a year in San Francisco certainly wouldn't be the same as $32k in Paducah, Kentucky, for example, so perhaps base pay wages could be adjusted to reflect that.
As far as the granularity. There are already other compensation programs that are broken down by county (Prevailing Wage rates). I don't think that you can go much more detailed than that.
Advantage - live in a low cost rural area and you end up making more, but you have to drive everywhere for everything from work to going to buy bananas.
One more reason why economics education is so important.
There is clearly no "one size fits all" solution to this. The difference in cost of living by region is wide and varied. For instance, a 1 bedroom apartment in Biloxi, MS averages $825 and in San Francisco it averages $3000. Here's a great comparison link you can input nearly any two cities in the world and compare. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=United+States&city1=Biloxi,+MS&city2=San+Francisco,+CA
While I agree that it's increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to raise a family on entry level pay, I'm convinced that such jobs were never intended to be careers, but simply stepping stones for low skilled workers to gain entry into the labor force. The fact that the economy is now providing no other stones on which to step is not the fault of businesses. Sometimes a guy needs to get a roommate to make ends meet, right?
One of these things is not like the other...
This one struck me as funny and true.
Or as I tell people: "I'm not in the business of (whatever company I'm working for), I'm in the Torchsong business, because at the end of the day, it's the only company I *have* to be loyal to."
We have a guy where I work now who basically shows up for six-month stretches (because we pay well) and makes enough to move back to where he actually lives on the cheap. Does this every few years or so. And he does great work, so we bring him back on. This is not a high-tech knowledge worker type position - he's a receptionist. But he's a receptionist who's seen the world a couple times over, whereas I went to Canada once. :)
That comment isn't half so flip as it sounds -- there a lot of households that are now becoming multi-generational, housing not only grown children but grandparents and extended families as well, in order to help everyone make expenses. This is a return to pre-WWII housing conventions.
pewsocialtrends.org/2014/07/17/in-post-recession-era-young-adults-drive-continuing-rise-in-multi-generational-living/
Currently I live about a mile away from my wife's in-laws and her brother and his wife. We might as well all be under one roof as much as they all see each other.
It's really only a stigma if you believe too much of the press or decide to let it get to you. You have to do what feels right and what *is* right for you in the long run.
How does that make sense?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-los-angeles-minimum-wage-unions-20150526-story.html
The recovery from the 08 housing market crash has not trickled down to the lower wage earners - lots of part time work at lower hourly rates than they made 7 years ago.
Can you blame the business owners for fighting a minimum wage increase ?
No.
Most of the small employers I know barely make more money then their employees, yet they have their capital tied up and take all the risk.
Can you blame workers for wanting to make a wage they can live on ?
No.
I don't know how anyone in a large urban area with high housing costs survives on anything near minimum wage.
I think our fundamental belief that we can lift everyone in the world up to a more traditional "U.S." standard of living through more trade, globalization, offshoring, etc. without impacting our economy, particularly those at the lowest runs of the economic ladder, is a flawed concept.
Our lack of domestic manufacturing is bad.
Our offshoring of support jobs is bad.
Our desire to continually import labor that we really don't need is bad.
Our inability to compete with other countries that pay $1.00 per hour with no health benefits, no retirement and no interest in the well being of their laborers is bad.
Our inability to compete with other countries that destroy their own environment in the pursuit of short term economic efficiency is bad.
To bad I don't know what the answer is.
(But I think reading the latest issue of the Avengers sure can't hurt!)
But the other half would pay you megadollars for your solution; so it's not a bad trade off.