How high of a minimum wage would you be willing to tolerate?

[Mercane]

They negotiate their wages as they have a skill? If you're an employer and you have a decent pharmacy technician making $14/hour who tells you they're going to work elsewhere because they can get paid more money are you going to just shrug and let them leave? Is that employee worth more money to you or do you intend to pay them as little as possible and keep spending more money rehiring and retraining a new pharmacy tech?

Said like you've never been held accountable for a labor budget. Training and Department labor are compartmentalized, so technically training people doesn't go directly against my scheduling hour budget- So yes, it's cheaper to hire and train someone new than it is to offer a raise to every tech (even if this leads to an easy way to prune bad employees).

If they're a solid employee? Of course I'd pay them more, where does that stop though? More importantly, what does that mean for the mark-up on pharmaceuticals (LOL if you think it's going to be a nickel)?

So if the cashier gets a 100% raise (minimum wage in Texas is 7.50), does the Tech get their hourly wage doubled (probably not, but for the sake of argument)? What about the Pharmacist who makes 70/hr? The Pharmacy Manager that makes 75/hr? The Market Director that makes 85/hr? The Regional Director? VP of Pharmacy Ops? Where does this end?

[Captain N]

Of course I'd pay them more, where does that stop though? More importantly, what does that mean for the mark-up on pharmaceuticals?

So if the cashier gets a 100% raise (minimum wage in Texas is 7.50), does the Tech get their hourly wage doubled (probably not, but for the sake of argument)? What about the Pharmacist who makes 70/hr? The Pharmacy Manager that makes 75/hr? The Market Director that makes 85/hr? The Regional Director? VP of Pharmacy Ops?

It depends on their negotiations and you really don't want to use pharmaceutical mark-ups in an argument about Minimum Wage. There's countries all throughout the world that pay better than the United States does and their medicines are much much cheaper for the very same products.

The ripple would increase the wages up the scale. The upper echelons may not be seeing the same increase as the bottom but they'll still see an increase depending on the company. It all boils down to how much a Company is going to pay to retain employees when the lowest level starts seeing more money. And this may be shocking but some people aren't really phased about seeing a few thousand dollars a year more when they're making six figures.

[kamuimac]

Fine- here's a better example.

Pharmacy techs currently make ~14, cashiers at pharmacys make minimum wage, so if the cashiers get a almost 50% pay increase, what happens to the techs (who pay annual fees to maintain a license, paid for education, etc)?

For the record- there's no Pharmacy union.

its simple - if casheirs get 50 % raise then technicians also get 50 % raise and suddenly inflation makes 15 $ made by lazy scrubs worth the same as 8 $ they make now

only iidots belive that minimum wage will solve anything if raaised artificially not just adjusted to existing inflation.

[Adam Jensen]

its simple - if casheirs get 50 % raise then technicians also get 50 % raise and suddenly inflation makes 15 $ made by lazy scrubs worth the same as 8 $ they make now

only iidots belive that minimum wage will solve anything if raaised artificially not just adjusted to existing inflation.

I find it ironic that you misspelled three words in a sentence where you're calling people idiots.

Inflation doesn't rise as fast as the minimum wage, or as purchasing power. Not unless we raise the minimum wage to some ridiculous number, which is higher than the amounts we've been calling for.

[Mercane]

There's countries all throughout the world that pay better than the United States does and their medicines are much much cheaper for the very same products.

We can complain about for-profit healthcare somewhere else.

The ripple would increase the wages up the scale. The upper echelons may not be seeing the same increase as the bottom but they'll still see an increase depending on the company. It all boils down to how much a Company is going to pay to retain employees when the lowest level starts seeing more money. And this may be shocking but some people aren't really phased about seeing a few thousand dollars a year more when they're making six figures.

I find it humorous that you think 'the lowest level' will ever see more money, and instead won't just find their positions eliminated and filled in by the technicians who now make more money by the labor wages freed by firing that 'lowest level'.

So yes, people clamoring for minimum wage increases, what you're really banging pots and pans about is having your job eliminated and replaced by a more skilled worker or automation. It's a minimum wage for minimum skill after all.

[Sunseeker]

When in all honesty, I wouldn't even notice a 25 cent increase to the cost of pizza. Of course that might just be me, as I tend to not pay attention to anything past the decimal and just round up to compensate. And obviously, I'm talking about small goods like pizza where guestimation won't lead to trouble. Point is though, the prices can rise a few cents and most people won't even notice.

It's not a direct proportion from the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage by one dollar, prices don't rise by that same dollar. It'll be a few cents.

Even if the prices of goods went up by 25% as compensation, that'd still be a massive net win for everyone.

[blankfaced]

Your explanation is the very reason for not having a mandated minimum wage. Have a discussion with your employer/prospective employer. Negotiate a wage that you both agree to.

The minimum is there to protect from it getting to ridiculous low points that people can't survive off a full time job without government assistance (which is basically the taxpayers subsidizing corporations so they don't have to pay their workers a livable wage, which anyone working a full time should be making a livable wage imo.) And it would be doing that had it kept up with the cost of living, which it hasn't.

[TITAN308]

The big key for me is adjusting based on cost of living for the area.

$15/hour in California is not the same as $15/hour in Texas, for example.

I do think adjustments should be made across the board, though. Pay for the workers hasn't kept up with cost of living and inflation while executive pay has increased 1000 times over since the 60s and 70s.

So much this.

I think people would be surprised that more people would be less defensive of raising the minimum wage if it was just not done on a flat federal level.

Paying someone $15 an hour to serve icecream in bumfuck Georgia is a bad idea. In CA or NYC? Ok.

[Sunseeker]

So much this.

I think people would be surprised that more people would be less defensive of raising the minimum wage if it was just not done on a flat federal level.

Paying someone $15 an hour to serve icecream in bumfuck Georgia is a bad idea. In CA or NYC? Ok.

Except people who make this argument have absolutely no clue the logistical burden of what you're asking. "By state" obviously isn't the answer because even though California has LA and San Fran, doesn't mean it doesn't also have Redding and Modesto, and even if it has those it doesn't mean it doesn't have Crescent City or Ridgecrest. These places have wildly different costs of living. So now you're asking what, to have some sort of government accounting agency analyze every town with a population of what, 10k or more? 50k? Where's your bar for "Must be this tall to adjust for minimum wage."? What do you do about all the towns under that number? Smaller population doesn't necessitate cheaper cost of living as Napa, CA; Jackson, WY; Aspen, CO; and numerous other small-but-wealthy towns will tell you, and those towns need their cashiers, their gas-station attendants and their shelf-stockers just as much as anywhere. Worse, the city councils in smaller-but-wealthier towns often artificially limit development of new homes in order to keep the value on existing homes high.

You don't understand what you're asking. It sounds simple, but like most sound-byte laws you run into the problem that reality is complicated.

[NihilSustinet]

Adjusted for inflation and GDP growth, the minimum wage, when it was instituted, was ~$22/hr in today's money. 15/hr is still lowballing a bit, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. The economic data shows that it would be a very large net boon to the economy as a whole.\

I will say though, that I would rather abolish the minimum wage entirely, and institute a UBI for all citizens over 18.

[TITAN308]

Except people who make this argument have absolutely no clue the logistical burden of what you're asking. "By state" obviously isn't the answer because even though California has LA and San Fran, doesn't mean it doesn't also have Redding and Modesto, and even if it has those it doesn't mean it doesn't have Crescent City or Ridgecrest. These places have wildly different costs of living. So now you're asking what, to have some sort of government accounting agency analyze every town with a population of what, 10k or more? 50k? Where's your bar for "Must be this tall to adjust for minimum wage."? What do you do about all the towns under that number? Smaller population doesn't necessitate cheaper cost of living as Napa, CA; Jackson, WY; Aspen, CO; and numerous other small-but-wealthy towns will tell you, and those towns need their cashiers, their gas-station attendants and their shelf-stockers just as much as anywhere. Worse, the city councils in smaller-but-wealthier towns often artificially limit development of new homes in order to keep the value on existing homes high.

You don't understand what you're asking. It sounds simple, but like most sound-byte laws you run into the problem that reality is complicated.

First off I never claimed it was simple. I just said the idea of a flat rate for the entire country is retarded.

If we are going the route of just throwing money at everyone then might as well do a universal income.

[Deleted]

For. For me, it should be based on a minimum standard of acceptable living, which in my mind would include, rent, food, utilities and a small excess, because sometimes people have unexpected costs or want to have fun.

Whatever that totals per month, divided by 160.


Edit; as such, minimum wages should be regional, and more frequently adjusted.

[Mercane]

For. For me, it should be based on a minimum standard of acceptable living, which in my mind would include, rent, food, utilities and a small excess, because sometimes people have unexpected costs or want to have fun.

Whatever that totals per month, divided by 160.


Edit; as such, minimum wages should be regional, and more frequently adjusted.

I think part of the problem is the expectation of a livable wage is and what that actually means.

I have to admit, people lose credibility arguing for their $15 minimum wage posting on the internet via their iPhone.

First off I never claimed it was simple. I just said the idea of a flat rate for the entire country is retarded.

If we are going the route of just throwing money at everyone then might as well do a universal income.

Let's not Karl Marx it.

[Kelathos]

How high of a minimum wage would you be willing to tolerate?

How fast do you want automation to replace workers? Minimum wage is not the answer to poor employment. Basic Income is.

[Deleted]

I think part of the problem is the expectation of a livable wage is and what that actually means.

I have to admit, people lose credibility arguing for their $15 minimum wage posting on the internet via their iPhone.

Perhaps.

Internet access is important to social and career progress these days. There's no getting around that not having reliable access to it is a disadvantage. Thus, you need some form of device to connect to the net with and while an iPhone is undoubtedly a luxury, a smart phone is very helpful in absence of a computer/tablet/etc.

[Resiak]

Not really. If I can make my kids understand the value of money and hard work without going through the crap I did, I would.

My point is I never got any handouts 10 yrs back when I was struggling like crazy; so don't expect me to vote for any kind of hand out plans like UBI or higher minimum wage. And I am an independent - so don't blame it on politics. I worked hard for the money I make (and no I am not any millionaire; just earn enough for a small house in the country and a small car). I have no interest in sharing my hard earned money with free-loaders.

I am never going to be rich. But I don't grudge rich people their money. They deserve what they earn.

This is where this country is going wrong. Everyone is damn bitter about what they had to do to get through their own lives, they could care less about trying to make the country a better place for all. Its all about my precious precious money (that is created, backed, valued, and regulated by our evil government).

I busted my ass too. Worked a grocery store warehouse for 9 years while i took classes part time. Now i'm a software developer. Make much better money, and have a lot of growth in my career. I also have four kids. I want my kids, and this nations future children to have a better outlook. I see other countries providing better educations to their kids. Universal health care. Better pay. And they seem to be doing just fine. Yet the richest nation in the world cant provide this stuff, because people are so scared to think bigger.

[Sunseeker]

First off I never claimed it was simple. I just said the idea of a flat rate for the entire country is retarded.

If we are going the route of just throwing money at everyone then might as well do a universal income.

I'm down, it's a better solution anyway.

It doesn't matter if you claimed it was simple or not. The argument of "I won't support this thing until my incredibly complex and obscure personal tastes are met!" is just really dumb.

[Deleted]

It depends on where you are. In a lot of California $15/hr wouldn't even pay rent.

It wouldn't pay a 700square feet apartment?

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps.

Internet access is important to social and career progress these days. There's no getting around that not having reliable access to it is a disadvantage. Thus, you need some form of device to connect to the net with and while an iPhone is undoubtedly a luxury, a smart phone is very helpful in absence of a computer/tablet/etc.

OR... you could go to an internet café.. library etc..

[Martymark]

Whatever the minimum wage, it should rise with inflation automatically.

[Mercane]

Yet the richest nation in the world cant provide this stuff, because people are so scared to think bigger.

The United States is at 9th place for countries ranked by wealth with roughly 1/3rd the GDP of Qatar.