Nobody Wants to WORRRK! T_T

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Sadly our economy has a lot of people who are penny-wise and dollar-foolish.

[Nealithi]

You're right, I did miss that. My bad.

So, how would raising the minimum wage affect them negatively, and what does it have to do with shifty suppliers?

My point was the mom and pop places have the deck stacked against them by the large conglomerates. And I think they are actually the wrong group to be called out for if they can't pay a fair wage. I pointed out the small business that say has a chain of two or more stores. Obviously they don't work those stores and must hire outside workers. They should pay well.
Sadly my question about living wage varying based on where you live remains. How does the federal government setting a national minimum mean that everyone is at a living wage?

And this took time for me to write. My mother came by and had to mention that her grandfather started working full time to support the family when he was eight. Because lack of labor laws had his father helping put in curbs in Philadelphia in 104 summer. When he got a heatstroke they sent him home with a doctor's bill that required the family to sell everything off and many of the kids ended in orphanages. (Exact details from me are not coming there. This is something from people that were gone before I was two years old. I only include this because she asked me to.)

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

The variation is a problem, and in theory that's what we have city and state minimum wages for. The thing is that the Federal Government is supposed to set the rock bottom for that wage, so that the cheapest places to live will At Least provide living wages. So far a lot of people are falling through cracks in rock bottom and into the abyss. If the government raises the federal minimum wage, then maybe, just maybe, some high-expense states and cities will raise theirs to keep up with competition. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than throwing up our hands and shrugging.

On a related note, we could do a better job if we had a True minimum wage. It's only seven bucks plus change for some people. Restaurant workers getting two bucks an hour on the assumption that they will get a certain amount of tips needs to change, as does paying incarcerated people cents on the hour for their work, as does the law that lets disabled people get paid less than minimum wage. I could also talk about how we need to end Right To Work laws, because if you can be fired for any reason the non-discrimination clauses functionally don't exist, but that's one more of many changes needed.

Yes, the deck is stacked against mom and pop's places, because that's what makes them small businesses. The more money you have, the more money you can make. I just fail to see why that inequity must fall on the shoulders of the working poor. Why is it "we must protect the weak" with businesses but "it's tough, what can you do?" for human beings?

[Mickey_Rat15]

The variation is a problem, and in theory that's what we have city and state minimum wages for. The thing is that the Federal Government is supposed to set the rock bottom for that wage, so that the cheapest places to live will At Least provide living wages. So far a lot of people are falling through cracks in rock bottom and into the abyss. If the government raises the federal minimum wage, then maybe, just maybe, some high-expense states and cities will raise theirs to keep up with competition. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than throwing up our hands and shrugging.

On a related note, we could do a better job if we had a True minimum wage. It's only seven bucks plus change for some people. Restaurant workers getting two bucks an hour on the assumption that they will get a certain amount of tips needs to change, as does paying incarcerated people cents on the hour for their work, as does the law that lets disabled people get paid less than minimum wage. I could also talk about how we need to end Right To Work laws, because if you can be fired for any reason the non-discrimination clauses functionally don't exist, but that's one more of many changes needed.

Yes, the deck is stacked against mom and pop's places, because that's what makes them small businesses. The more money you have, the more money you can make. I just fail to see why that inequity must fall on the shoulders of the working poor. Why is it "we must protect the weak" with businesses but "it's tough, what can you do?" for human beings?

For one thing, because you are proposing to rob Peter to pay the Pauls. No matter how noble your intentions are in what you want done for Paul (which is debatable), you threatening force on Peter based on likely faulty assumptions that he has the extra income to cover your demands. Which if Peter does not, will not be good for the Pauls in the long run.

Also, you are effectively creating an environment favoring existing large corporations by strangling future competitors in the cradle. The large corporations can easier handle large rises in costs, compared to the average small business.

Government, especially the federal government has no just authority to set prices, because of interference in the right to contract, disruptions in the marketplace because of the knowledge problem

Lastly, you speak of "inequity". A business owner has put considerable capital into his venture both financial and his personal human capital. He has taken on considerable liabilities with no guarantees of getting a return. The employee has little invested in his job and no liability. He is free to leave when he wants.

You want to impose an arbitrary notion of "equity" on unequal situations, based on your ignorance of what actually involved.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum ... or%20force.

Overview
The national minimum wage was created by Congress under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. Congress enacted this legislation under its authority in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress shall have power to . . . regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” FLSA was a comprehensive federal scheme which provided for minimum wages, overtime pay, record keeping requirements, and child labor regulations. The purpose of the minimum wage was to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force. The minimum wage was designed to create a minimum standard of living to protect the health and well-being of employees. Others have argued that the primary purpose was to aid the lowest paid of the nation's working population, those who lacked sufficient bargaining power to secure for themselves a minimum subsistence wage. FLSA specifically provided for a minimum wage for full time and part time, public and private sector workers. Specifically, workers who are “engaged in” or “in the production of goods for” interstate (commerce between the states) and foreign commerce.

Employees
FLSA's requirements only apply to “employees.” To determine whether an individual is an employee under the FLSA, courts usually focus on the economic reality of the relationship. The important issue is whether the individual is “economically dependent” on the business to which the employee renders service. Courts also look at a variety of factors that are similar to those used in the common law tort context to differentiate employees from independent contractors. For example, courts will look at the degree of control the alleged employer has over the way in which the work is performed - typically an employer will have more of a degree of control over an employee, compared to the degree of control that an employer would have over an independent contractor.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

For one thing, because you are proposing to rob Peter to pay the Pauls. No matter how noble your intentions are in what you want done for Paul (which is debatable), you threatening force on Peter based on likely faulty assumptions that he has the extra income to cover your demands. Which if Peter does not, will not be good for the Pauls in the long run.

Also, you are effectively creating an environment favoring existing large corporations by strangling future competitors in the cradle. The large corporations can easier handle large rises in costs, compared to the average small business.

Government, especially the federal government has no just authority to set prices, because of interference in the right to contract, disruptions in the marketplace because of the knowledge problem

Lastly, you speak of "inequity". A business owner has put considerable capital into his venture both financial and his personal human capital. He has taken on considerable liabilities with no guarantees of getting a return. The employee has little invested in his job and no liability. He is free to leave when he wants.

You want to impose an arbitrary notion of "equity" on unequal situations, based on your ignorance of what actually involved.

The case for minimum wage isn't about businesses vs employees in a pareto efficiency. It's specifically to make sure that employees, as part of the market economy, aren't being exploited and are able to make a living wage if they follow in a legal trust with a company to provide specifically committed service.

The government very can set prices, among other things. The government's main mechanism for fluidly running in society is by taxing any and all forms of asset transfer by the procedure of a comprehensive legal framework. It's very easy to track wages in an above board business, and the mechanism for controlling them isn't much different than anything else.

... And thinking about it, if there is an understood boomer standard where people were expected to leave the house by 18, then there shouldn't really be a social provision that people working a mere 2 years before being leaving can be assumed to be in a class that is just making pocket money and helping out their parents by buying school supplies.

[McAvoy]

I will say that this might not work with small businesses. Paying let's say $15 an hour for even one employee might be beyond some. But that is small potatoes compared to Mega corporations like let's say Walmart or fucking Amazon.

Let's let not forget the how bad Amazon is to their employees.

And yet, it's the Mega Corps that legislate even harder against $15 an hour. Because they have a lot more people to pay $15 an hour too.

Not to sound callous, but any Mom and Pops store that pays it's employees $7.50 an hour deserves to fail. Everyone has a right sleep indoors and put food on the table. Owning a bed-and-breakfast or a bakery is a privilege, not a right.

If we ard talking about a 20+ something year old relying on this job to pay the bills then yes I agree with you. But if we are talking about teenagers who are still in school and living under their parent's roof then they don't necessarily need a living wage. The bills are already taken cared of.

Ah yes, the eponymous Teenagers, for whom the minimum wage was allegedly designed.

Never mind that most fast food workers are middle-aged moms.
Never mind that most minimum wage jobs do not keep to hours when teenagers are out of school.
Never mind that the minimum wage was first created, explicitly, so that a person who worked-full time could pay rent, and food, AND support a family instead of living in abject poverty.

You might as well say that the minimum wage is designed for elves who can pay the rent with their fairy gold.

Well gee did I ever say that the minimum wage was designed for teenagers?

Since we are talking about minimum wage jobs, there are alot of those that operate after school hours. Grocery schools, fast food places, retail jobs. Maybe you are talking about those jobs when the teenager is in school.

My point that you glossed over is that you could give the 20+ year olds higher wages than teenagers since they will most likely need the extra money to support themselves whereas teenagers typically do not.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Also, you are effectively creating an environment favoring existing large corporations by strangling future competitors in the cradle. The large corporations can easier handle large rises in costs, compared to the average small business.

Large corporations can handle anything better, because a business needs to run a profit to survive, and you can make more profit if you have more money to start with. Should we just give up on every kind of business regulation or ethical stricture because small businesses are less able to meet or evade them than big businesses with squads of lawyers?

Lastly, you speak of "inequity". A business owner has put considerable capital into his venture both financial and his personal human capital. He has taken on considerable liabilities with no guarantees of getting a return.

You're right, there are no guarantees of return, because no investment is guaranteed to pay off. The first rule of investing is you don't invest more than you can afford to lose. If they invest more in their small business than they can afford to lose, they should have been more responsible with money.

The employee has little invested in his job and no liability. He is free to leave when he wants.

That "freedom" means nothing if all the other jobs available pay the same wage. Enough money to eat and sleep indoors is a right. A net gain on your financial investment of spare money is not.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I will say that this might not work with small businesses. Paying let's say $15 an hour for even one employee might be beyond some. But that is small potatoes compared to Mega corporations like let's say Walmart or fucking Amazon.

Let's let not forget the how bad Amazon is to their employees.

And yet, it's the Mega Corps that legislate even harder against $15 an hour. Because they have a lot more people to pay $15 an hour too.

Not to sound callous, but any Mom and Pops store that pays it's employees $7.50 an hour deserves to fail. Everyone has a right sleep indoors and put food on the table. Owning a bed-and-breakfast or a bakery is a privilege, not a right.

If we ard talking about a 20+ something year old relying on this job to pay the bills then yes I agree with you. But if we are talking about teenagers who are still in school and living under their parent's roof then they don't necessarily need a living wage. The bills are already taken cared of.

Ah yes, the eponymous Teenagers, for whom the minimum wage was allegedly designed.

Never mind that most fast food workers are middle-aged moms.
Never mind that most minimum wage jobs do not keep to hours when teenagers are out of school.
Never mind that the minimum wage was first created, explicitly, so that a person who worked-full time could pay rent, and food, AND support a family instead of living in abject poverty.

You might as well say that the minimum wage is designed for elves who can pay the rent with their fairy gold.

Well gee did I ever say that the minimum wage was designed for teenagers?

Then what are you saying? Why bring teenagers into it? If you're arguing that the 20+ year olds somehow WILL get payed more than the teenagers, how? What would compel their employers to do so?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Don't forget that businesses don't necessarily need to hire teens living with their parents. I mean if they themselves are so pissed over that made up provision.