this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
1559 points (98.5% liked)
People Twitter
5391 readers
1247 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which is still garbage. How does someone survive today on less than $25,000/year?
Live with their parents. It's doable to "survive", it's just that someone cannot "thrive", i.e. live the American Dream, or have health insurance, thus getting back to your point about survival, although that's generally considered a separate thing than income, bc e.g. someone could be on their spouse's health plan.
And then there are all sorts of tricks to go below minimum wage too... including having more black people locked up and working in for-profit prisons than were ever used as slaves; or Waffle House's trick where someone only gets a base wage of like $3.25 an hour and then while the minimum $7.25 per hour is guaranteed, in order to get more than that they have to make up the difference with tips (on what is <$10 meals).
But how do you help people when (a) things like the electoral college and gerrymandering exist, (b) preachers say from the actual, literal pulpit that God commands to vote Republican, and (c) those areas vote conservative not only for themselves but also apply that to the nation at large, e.g. keeping Mitch McConnell in power, and making abortion illegal in those states.
TLDR: it's how they choose to live. And they might be about to fight an actual civil war to extend those "rights" further.
Well we know how American civil wars end, and the country could use some more Reconstruction
Yes, it's not meant to support a family on, but it's totally possible to live on, especially if you live with other people (e.g. have a roommate). A 2 bed apartment is something like $1200-1500, so if you cut that in half (i.e. roommate, dual income family, etc), that's about 1/4-1/3 of a $25k/year wage, which is about what PF writers suggest.
And this is starting pay at the crappiest jobs, many easy to get jobs pay closer to $15/hr. The only people actually making $10-12 are teenagers, college students, and people with limited/negative employment history.
The solution here, IMO, isn't to increase the minimum wage (that'll end up reducing jobs), but to supplement the income of people who do those jobs (i.e. something like UBI).
Research has found that increasing minimum wage does not reduce jobs.
https://www.epi.org/blog/most-minimum-wage-studies-have-found-little-or-no-job-loss/#:~:text=Most%20minimum%20wage%20studies%20have,job%20loss%20%7C%20Economic%20Policy%20Institute
https://sp2.upenn.edu/study-increasing-minimum-wage-has-positive-effects-on-employment-in-fast-food-sector-and-other-highly-concentrated-labor-markets/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2023/05/20/does-raising-the-minimum-wage-result-in-job-losses-in-small-firms/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/higher-minimum-wages-support-job-growth-economy-recovers-covid-19/
https://irle.berkeley.edu/publications/press-release/new-study-analyzes-impact-of-californias-20-minimum-wage-for-fast-food-workers/
Employment typically lags policy, and stores will prefer to raise prices than potentially reduce their ability to service customer needs. However, the higher the minimum wage goes, the more attractive replacements for workers become, meaning there will be more investment into kiosks and other ways to reduce headcount.
I think we'll really see how things will work in the next economic correction when stores cut costs to retain customers. So I'm less interested in data from a couple months after the policy change (basically the Berkeley study) and more interested in data 2-5 years after the change. Will fast food companies increase the pace of developing digital replacements for workers?
I don't have a link handy, but there was a study that showed that fast food businesses didn't reduce staffing when they replaced cashier's with kiosks. Rather, they shifted employment to areas that couldn't be replaced with a kiosk, enabling the staff to meet the increased demand and increased sales that were a result of the kiosks.
Which is just "reduced staffing" in different words. If the kiosks weren't there, they would have hired more workers, built more restaurants, etc. But they opted for the kiosks because they were cheaper than expanding hiring.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think it's something that a lot of studies downplay. They instead focus on job loss instead of lack of job growth (i.e. we expect more employment every year as population increases).
And there absolutely is a breaking point where we'll see job loss, as in the risk of reduced business from crappy customer experience is worth the cut in jobs, and it's unclear where exactly that breaking point is. Maybe we've hit it, idk, I expect these types of things to lag policy changes by a few years because it takes time for innovation to happen. But once a company can successfully reduce headcount w/o reducing revenues significantly, we'll see other companies jump on board, and that will happen sooner the higher we push minimum wages.
Except the study specified that the increased sales were related to the presence of the kiosks. They could do point of sale promotions that just weren't reliably done if a person was in between the customer and the computer.