Unexpected Consequences: Min Wage Hike Fallout

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I would not deny your right to fire someone who refused to work as many hours as you wish them to work, just pointing out that this is a structural problem and your replacement workers would likely have the same situation. It's possible that you could work your way to having all workers without that situation since it won't be universal, but in the market you'd probably have to pay a premium to attract and hold that minority of minimum wage workers.

My position would simply be: I need you to work X amount of hours per week, if you can't/won't do it, I'll replace you.

This does NOT mean I won't give certain days off, or whatever.


Weak sauce. Everyone here, including you, understood that his firing them would be contingent on them refusing to work the hours he needed them to work.

He well understood what I meant, and attempted to bail himself out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
But we're not talking about approving/disapproving time off -- we're talking about costing me more money here by trying to keep Gov't assistance so you can "afford to live".

Like I said, you're reaching for something that isn't there.

You added that condition in later, and you simply hypothetically declared that they would cost you more money.

Again, I'm giving you an out here. You can simply say that you didn't mean you would fire them for asking, only that you would fire them for refusing to work when you wanted. I have already said that's a very reasonable position to hold.

That appears to be your position now, but you are clinging for some reason to the idea that this reasonable position is what you originally said, which it wasn't. It's okay to say 'whoops, that's not what I meant'.
 

Chaotic0ne

Member
Jul 12, 2015
193
0
0
If it wasn't for those welfare programs, everybody under a certain income level would be forced to work 2 jobs, or 12-16hrs a day 6 days a week just to be able to live. The cost of living isn't terribly high in my area, but 2 people in a household making $10/hr 40 hrs a week with 2 kids to feed is dirt freaking poor. I'm talking about living in a 20 year old trailer and can't even afford basic cable kinda poor. To live middle class in this area with 2 kids, you'd need to be pulling $65-70k minimum from the household. Engineers only make slightly more than that in my area. So to live middle class, have a stay at home wife and 2 kids you need to make engineer level pay, or better. The bar shouldn't be set that high for middle class living.

Meanwhile average CEO pay has skyrocketed from 10-20x average in the 60s to 400-500x average in post 2000 era, when in the 60s you used to be able to work at a place like a steel mill and bring home enough money to raise a family and have a stay at home wife. You just can't do that anymore. Rather than be content with the way things are, people need to start demanding the top 1% come off of some of their money and start paying the people at the bottom a little more. This trickle down economy isn't working. The top 1-5% are looking below and watching the people lower fight tooth and nail for the scraps at the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't bring out the best in people, it brings out a certain level of viciousness, and ruthlessness, drives a few people into doing illegal activities to make money, etc. Ask most drug dealers why they deal drugs, and I guarantee most of them will say its because they didn't know how to make a decent living any other way. The economy is partly to blame for driving people into desperation.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
He well understood what I meant, and attempted to bail himself out.

If I understood that's what you meant and I have no problem with employers firing employees for refusing to work assigned hours, why would I have taken issue with it to begin with? That's nonsensical.

You're letting your sense of pride get in the way of your head.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Again, I'm giving you an out here. You can simply say that you didn't mean you would fire them for asking, only that you would fire them for refusing to work when you wanted. I have already said that's a very reasonable position to hold.

I don't need your "out". Everyone else here seemed to get what I was saying...except for you.

Not surprising...you don't like being wrong anyway, so double-down till you're blue in the face.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Did I now? What else do you know about what I know?

I took him saying 'I would fire someone for asking for fewer hours to stay on government assistance' to mean 'I would fire someone for asking for fewer hours to stay on government assistance'.

It's not like it was an ambiguous statement.
It's also not like it came out of left field independent of any other posts. However, for your benefit I will amend my statement to be more accurate.

Everyone here with an at least marginally functional cerebrum and the ability to form at least short term memories understood that his firing them would be contingent on them refusing to work the hours he needed them to work.

You may include or exclude yourself as you feel best describes your particular situation.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
If it wasn't for those welfare programs, everybody under a certain income level would be forced to work 2 jobs, or 12-16hrs a day 6 days a week just to be able to live. The cost of living isn't terribly high in my area, but 2 people in a household making $10/hr 40 hrs a week with 2 kids to feed is dirt freaking poor. I'm talking about living in a 20 year old trailer and can't even afford basic cable kinda poor.

Meanwhile average CEO pay has skyrocketed from 10-20x average in the 60s to 400-500x average in post 2000 era, when in the 60s you used to be able to work at a place like a steel mill and bring home enough money to raise a family and have a stay at home wife. You just can't do that anymore. Rather than be content with the way things are, people need to start demanding the top 1% come off of some of their money and start paying the people at the bottom a little more. This trickle down economy isn't working.

This! No matter where you stand on minimum wage the above fact cannot be ignored. How many hours should someone have to work to support a family? Low skilled people can learn new skills but can everyone be highly skilled and if that ever happens they obviously aren't highly skilled any longer, what will their salary be once everyone is highly skilled? Something is structurally wrong if two people working full time are considered poor.
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
In a city do you want to attract poor people or the middle class? Think about this a minute.

Does your city not have restaurants, grocery stores, retail outlets, sanitation, landscaping, hospitality services, housecleaning, drivers, and thousands of other traditional low-wage occupations? The world needs ditch-diggers too; you can't just ship off all the unskilled positions or the citizens of your city will need to leave to do everything from dry-cleaning to eating out to buying basic household items.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Asking for fewer hours isn't that big of a deal. I did it when in high school and some of college when I was working an hourly job. As long as you let them know before they make the schedule it isn't an issue most of the time unless the business is running razor thin on labor. Requesting to go part time is an easy transition as well. Its all about giving proper notice and working with your employer. This talk about firing people because they request an hour change (with proper notice) is far too situational to debate in general terms.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Asking for fewer hours isn't that big of a deal. I did it when in high school and some of college when I was working an hourly job. As long as you let them know before they make the schedule it isn't an issue most of the time unless the business is running razor thin on labor. Requesting to go part time is an easy transition as well. Its all about giving proper notice and working with your employer. This talk about firing people because they request an hour change (with proper notice) is far too situational to debate in general terms.

I agree, but I was more speaking hypothetically.

It depends on what the earning threshold (which I don't know) for someone to be cut off of assistance.

That would go a long way in determining how many hours someone wants to work.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
It's also not like it came out of left field independent of any other posts. However, for your benefit I will amend my statement to be more accurate.

Everyone here with an at least marginally functional cerebrum and the ability to form at least short term memories understood that his firing them would be contingent on them refusing to work the hours he needed them to work.

You may include or exclude yourself as you feel best describes your particular situation.

Oh werepossum, never change.

When it comes to "all lives matter", things that people say should be interpreted literally. When it comes to this, things must be interpreted in context.

Gee, color me shocked that you're as big of a liar and a hypocrite in this situation as you are in most others.

I for one always try to take context into account. If our good friend Rob was trying to communicate something different, that's fine by me. I'm not demanding that he abide by whatever he wrote before, but I don't like his attempt to pretend that he didn't write it and not acknowledge that was he wrote wasn't what he meant.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
I don't need your "out". Everyone else here seemed to get what I was saying...except for you.

Not surprising...you don't like being wrong anyway, so double-down till you're blue in the face.

If that wasn't what you meant, and I clearly repeated my understanding of what you meant several times, why didn't you just say "I didn't mean that people should be fired for asking, but fired for refusing to work more" instead of flying off the handle, throwing insults everywhere, and trying to repeatedly straw man me?

Wouldn't that have been much easier?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
If that wasn't what you meant, and I clearly repeated my understanding of what you meant several times, why didn't you just say "I didn't mean that people should be fired for asking, but fired for refusing to work more" instead of flying off the handle, throwing insults everywhere, and trying to repeatedly straw man me?

Wouldn't that have been much easier?

But what good reason would there be to terminate someone's job simply because they asked for less hours? To your point (admittedly), I can say "no", so I wouldn't need to fire him and hire and train someone else.

The firing would be the result of the refusal, obviously. I didn't think I needed to spell this out for you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
But what good reason would there be to terminate someone's job simply because they asked for less hours? To your point (admittedly), I can say "no", so I wouldn't need to fire him and hire and train someone else.

The firing would be the result of the refusal, obviously. I didn't think I needed to spell this out for you.

I agree, there would be no good reason! That's why I thought it was ridiculous.

Again, this all could have been averted by a "that's not what I meant".
 

Chaotic0ne

Member
Jul 12, 2015
193
0
0
This! No matter where you stand on minimum wage the above fact cannot be ignored. How many hours should someone have to work to support a family? Low skilled people can learn new skills but can everyone be highly skilled and if that ever happens they obviously aren't highly skilled any longer, what will their salary be once everyone is highly skilled? Something is structurally wrong if two people working full time are considered poor.

The big capitalists love it when the potential labor pool is increased. They tell us it will only make goods and services cheaper, when in reality its only raised the bar for income vs living standards, because the top 1% are hording all the money rather than allowing it to trickle down to the bottom.

Skilled trades like Carpentry and Masonry have had its wages completely gutted by immigrant labor willing to do these jobs for 1/2 or 1/3 the price.

If the ones with IT or computer science jobs think they're safe, wait until the big Capitalists start demanding more H1B immigrants so they can displace you from your jobs or make you knock your living standards down a notch or 2 for doing the same job. Some people need to stop and realize that yes, they've completely gutted the working class, but they're coming for your jobs next. Its already started happening:

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/...tract-workers-brought-in-from-other-countries

Let me make this clear that I don't blame the immigrants for taking advantage of an opportunity to improve their lives, and the blame goes to the Capitalists who are encouraging and taking advantage of this policy at the expense of the pay checks and living standards of US citizens. Neither the Democrats or Republicans are fighting for the living standards of US citizens.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I agree, there would be no good reason! That's why I thought it was ridiculous.

Again, this all could have been averted by a "that's not what I meant".

OK, so let me ask you a question I didn't see you answer: Would you rather people work full time at an increased wage, while off Gov't assistance?

I ask because if you're gonna be for an hour reduction to maintain the assistance, then what's the point of raising the wage? You'll end up simply cancelling it out with the hour reduction.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
OK, so let me ask you a question I didn't see you answer: Would you rather people work full time at an increased wage, while off Gov't assistance?

I ask because if you're gonna be for an hour reduction to maintain the assistance, then what's the point of raising the wage? You'll end up simply cancelling it out with the hour reduction.

That assumes people would like to stay at the same earning level (which is below the poverty line) while working less and only in very specific situations. To get significant government assistance you need to either have children or be disabled. So a parent could potentially work less and no longer need day care. A disabled person likely isn't working at all. I think a lot of people that get upset about assistance envision a youthful male working part time and raking in government benefits, but that just isn't the case.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
OK, so let me ask you a question I didn't see you answer: Would you rather people work full time at an increased wage, while off Gov't assistance?

I ask because if you're gonna be for an hour reduction to maintain the assistance, then what's the point of raising the wage? You'll end up simply cancelling it out with the hour reduction.

I'm not for an hour reduction to maintain the assistance, I'm down for reforming the rent assistance programs so they aren't structured stupidly.

As I said before, on the first page I think, programs should ALWAYS be structured so there is never an incentive to earn less money. For example, (made up numbers) if you get $100 a month in rental assistance, for every $5 extra you make your subsidy should go down $1, until it eventually reaches zero. This program sounds like it has a hard cutoff point, which is stupid.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
That assumes people would like to stay at the same earning level (which is below the poverty line) while working less and only in very specific situations. To get significant government assistance you need to either have children or be disabled. So a parent could potentially work less and no longer need day care. A disabled person likely isn't working at all. I think a lot of people that get upset about assistance envision a youthful male working part time and raking in government benefits, but that just isn't the case.

I recently found out that my roommate gets food stamps. You just described him. He's in his 20s after graduating from a music school. He works a few short hours for the school system teaching and tutoring kids in percussion instruments. I've known him almost his entire life. He's comfortable and has no incentive to stop thanks to government assistance for a youthful male. Early this year he bought the latest Galaxy S phone (S5) when he broke his previous Galaxy S phone that was also the latest when he bought it (SIII). He has an almost identical car to mine (2009 automatic compared to my 2011 manual) and an almost identical lifestyle and almost identical expenses all without having to work nearly as much. I'd say that he is more than comfortable. That person exists.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
I recently found out that my roommate gets food stamps. You just described him. He's in his 20s after graduating from a music school. He works a few short hours for the school system teaching and tutoring kids in percussion instruments. I've known him almost his entire life. He's comfortable and has no incentive to stop thanks to government assistance for a youthful male. Early this year he bought the latest Galaxy S phone (S5) when he broke his previous Galaxy S phone that was also the latest when he bought it (SIII). He has an almost identical car to mine (2009 automatic compared to my 2011 manual) and an almost identical lifestyle and almost identical expenses all without having to work nearly as much. I'd say that he is more than comfortable. That person exists.

He lives a comfortable life on less than $15k a year?
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
856
126
He lives a comfortable life on less than $15k a year?
Yes. You nailed his estimated yearly maximum too.

Shocked, right? Not everyone needs more. Our apartment is low quality but he doesn't live in bum-fu*k either. It's literally right off the Interstate and less than 20 minutes from the the airport (Atlanta proper). That probably gives a bit too much away about exactly where I live, but I don't really care.
 
Last edited:

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
The question is, do you understand the situation? Do you understand that, even at the "lordly" wage of $13/hr, these people wouldn't be able to afford a place to live in Seattle? Do you understand how ugly and economically skewed that situation is?

Well, do you? :colbert:

Directly from your link:

but the people on the left claimed this new 'living wage' would get people off welfare.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Yes. You nailed his estimated yearly maximum too.

Shocked, right? Not everyone needs more. Our apartment is low quality but he doesn't live in bum-fu*k either. It's literally right off the Interstate and less than 20 minutes from the the airport (Atlanta proper). That probably gives a bit too much away about exactly where I live, but I don't really care.

This reveals another problem when talking about the minimum wage; you can live comfortably on $15,000 a year in Atlanta, but in San Francisco or New York, $15,000 a year is going to leave you homeless. The cost of living is not a static thing, and people from places with low cost of living have trouble understanding why people in the Bay Area are spending $40,000 a year on rent. The cost of living is ultimately the driving factor behind any discussion about minimum wage, but if we're coming from completely different standards of what the cost of living is, it's going to be hard to reach any sort of consensus.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Oh werepossum, never change.

When it comes to "all lives matter", things that people say should be interpreted literally. When it comes to this, things must be interpreted in context.

Gee, color me shocked that you're as big of a liar and a hypocrite in this situation as you are in most others.

I for one always try to take context into account. If our good friend Rob was trying to communicate something different, that's fine by me. I'm not demanding that he abide by whatever he wrote before, but I don't like his attempt to pretend that he didn't write it and not acknowledge that was he wrote wasn't what he meant.
The only way you ever take context into account is to find some way to superficially justify your own predetermined ideologically driven opinion, such as insisting that "all lives matter" actually means "not all lives matter". It's quite amusing therefore to see you call anyone dishonest.