Who do you want to see indicted first?

[eigen]

I would like to see something done to the people who raised the minimum wage above what the market demands, thus ensuring that waitresses of the future will be robots.

Or maybe our unemployment numbers will more accurately reflect the plight of many people in the US who are significantly underemployed.

[dismalist]

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

[writingprof]

Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.

[eigen]

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

[dismalist]

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]

[eigen]

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]

The goal isn't to make them unemployed. The goal is to make all jobs livable.

That may mean we, as a society, need to be more willing to pay for goods and services made by someone earning a living wage, and it may also mean we need to take a hard look at what jobs are available and how and where people are employed.

Having an underclass of jobs that do not pay a wage that enables living with an ability to pay for housing, food and medical costs but are counted as "employed" is a problem, and enables us to keep sweeping the bigger issue under the rug.

[mamselle]

I keep thinking of Orwell as a plongeur...

M.

[dismalist]

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

The problem is that when people are underemployed at $10 an hour, we as a society don't see it as a problem and they are increasingly likely to fall through the cracks. There are also very few resources available to help those who are underemployed relative to those who are unemployed.

The perpetuation of an "underclass" of jobs that are not enough to live on is a bad thing for the country as a whole. Changing to fewer jobs that pay living wages focuses on the fact that we are not doing as well financially as a nation as we like to purport, and enables us to start looking for sustainable solutions long-term.

It's the same thing with adjuncts vs. FT jobs. Sure, more people are employed as adjuncts, but in unsustainable positions. Employing fewer people FT puts people out of work, but pushes the system towards sustainability and ensures those who can find a job are able to survive on the wages it pays.

But we have a safety net! Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP [food stamps] are the big ones, but there are countless others. If one wants to help the poor, one should give them money, individually or collectively, and perhaps advocate for giving them more money,  not make them unemployed.

[Adjuncts are not a special case.]

The goal isn't to make them unemployed. The goal is to make all jobs livable.

That may mean we, as a society, need to be more willing to pay for goods and services made by someone earning a living wage, and it may also mean we need to take a hard look at what jobs are available and how and where people are employed.

Having an underclass of jobs that do not pay a wage that enables living with an ability to pay for housing, food and medical costs but are counted as "employed" is a problem, and enables us to keep sweeping the bigger issue under the rug.

Lovely! The cheapest way of doing that is through a wage subsidy! Earned Income Tax Credit, as I said above. We already have it.

I will join anyone on the hustings to raise the rate of subsidy.

The problem is that there are all kinds of nice sounding demands and nobody wants to pay for them.

[mamselle]

Hmmm.....indictments, I think I came here because I had an indictment in mind....

Oh, yes, whomever is the press secretary today.

By tomorrow, they'll have been removed again, so it will be too late.

But certainly SOME press secretary should be indicted to go along with their four-year-long dances through the revolving doors of the past term.

Just a small, slight indictment, no need to upset anybody else.

But I think it should be considered at least a symbolic necessity, just for willfully misleading so many people in so many different ways.

M.

[kaysixteen]

Even before the pandemic, many of the very wealthiest corporations in the country, owned by some of the wealthiest people, paid starvation wages to people who had little choice but to accept the positions (because the true level of the 'safety net' is appallingly deficient), and the pandemic has made things very much worse, whilst many of these selfsame corps have seen their stock prices skyrocket to unheard of heights as the forced closures of many of their small-fry, not sufficiently 'essential' competitors have been shuttered involuntarily for many months.   Yet those arguing against forced increases in the minimum wage seem strangely silent when asked why such corporations and their zillionaire owners should have their starvation wage peons' salaries greatly augmented by the taxpayers, who do have to pay for whatever passes for a 'safety net' that we actually have.   Irrespective of the actual negative effects on the lower-wage populations of such forced min wage increases (as opposed to tired talking point propaganda), why is the forced subsidies of people named Walton and Bezos just?

[mamselle]

Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.

No need to be profane. I was trying to understand if there were any grounds for a sense of commonality, fellow-feeling, or empathy by which your position might be informed.

You do realize that in the US, servers typically only get 1/2 minimum wage, and are expected to make up the rest in tips? And that if unemployment is paid, it could well be half of that?

So that $10/hr becomes $5/hr, and it could then become $2.50.

And in many places, no serious CoL adjustments go through for years at a time?

Just interested to know if all the spiderweb theorizing is being spun out of a base in knowledge, or imagination.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Have you ever worked in a restaurant?

M.

My god, who cares?  The answer is yes, but my "lived experience" has nothing to do with my ability to grasp basic economic concepts.

Would anyone rather be unemployed at $15/hour than underemployed at 10$/hour?

Like this one.

No need to be profane. I was trying to understand if there were any grounds for a sense of commonality, fellow-feeling, or empathy by which your position might be informed.

You do realize that in the US, servers typically only get 1/2 minimum wage, and are expected to make up the rest in tips? And that if unemployment is paid, it could well be half of that?

Tipping in North America is something that messes with all kinds of wage discussions. (Lots of countries don't have it at all.) How many places doing only takeout, even before covid, still have the "tip" option on the electronic payment? What purpose does that remotely serve? Also, the expected income from tips varies vastly by the type of establishment; upscale places can make tips way bigger than "salary", while cheap places may get very few.


Some restaurants have actually gone to forbidding tipping, and paying their servers a higher base wage. It will be interesting to see over time how that is for customer and employee retention.

[kaysixteen]

You say 'North America'-- what is SOP wrt tipping in Canada?

[Parasaurolophus]

You say 'North America'-- what is SOP wrt tipping in Canada?

The minimum wage is the minimum wage (there's some variation in the amount across provinces, and some occasional variation by employment type--e.g. student, liquor business, etc.--but it's pretty minimal variation. Like, a buck.). Tips are extra, and aren't included in wages. Tipping is common across the country, although there are some establishments where it's not done; most importantly, there's no place in this country where your hourly wage is $1 because you're expected to make $30 or more a month in tips.

I think that's right, although you're all free to correct me: I won't fight it.