Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Archaeology cat]

I work in construction I see a lot of immigrant workers on the job these people travel thousands of miles to find work separated from their families etc.  These workers work long and hard turn their pay, to make good money, but they sacrificed so much... 

I'm sure they could find work Closer home for minimum wage, raising the minimum wage Will not change or improve anything

America was and still is the land of opportunity.

my point is the opportunity to earn a living wage is there if you are willing to work hard.

Your last sentence, though, is not actually reality for all. For some there truly isn't the opportunity, unfortunately. I wish it were different.

[Anomaly]

Your last sentence, though, is not actually reality for all. For some there truly isn't the opportunity, unfortunately. I wish it were different.

I've worked in construction for more than thirty years.  It takes a work ethic to earn a living.   Most people are not honest anout the value of their effort and thy is why they think there is no opportunity.   It's more likely that an immigrant is more willing to do more with less  

Opportunity smells of sweat and is tiring. 

[little2add]

Your last sentence, though, is not actually reality for all. For some there truly isn't the opportunity, unfortunately. I wish it were different.

okay, if I'm wrong why is it literally millions of immigrants flock to our shores?

[Ice_nine]

okay, if I'm wrong why is it literally millions of immigrants flock to our shores?

Because some people don't see doing back-breaking work for under minimum wage as an opportunity while others do. If you are in a Mexican neighborhood that is terrorized by a drug cartel (thanks USA for the war on drugs!) then being a migrant farm worker seems a lot more appealing than living in an American neighborhood with a much higher standard of living.

I've worked in construction for more than thirty years.  It takes a work ethic to earn a living.   Most people are not honest anout the value of their effort and thy is why they think there is no opportunity.   It's more likely that an immigrant is more willing to do more with less  

Opportunity smells of sweat and is tiring. 

It's also easier to use immigrant workers and treat them however you desire because if they try to, I don't know, demand to be treated fairly, they can expect to see the INS.

[little2add]

Because some people don't see doing back-breaking work for under minimum wage as an opportunity while others do. If you are in a Mexican neighborhood that is terrorized by a drug cartel (thanks USA for the war on drugs!) then being a migrant farm worker seems a lot more appealing than living in an American neighborhood with a much higher standard of living.

The immigrant's  workers in construction are mostly highly skilled tradesmen  with a good work ethic .   They earn far more than minimum wage . 

 There's nothing wrong with honest backbreaking work .    In fact the willingness to work hard to support yourself and your family is a virtue  and extremely admirable 

 

 

[Socrates]

"Burger-flipper" huh? My sister and brother-in-law are both custodians - do you have a demeaning way to refer to their work as well? "Toilet-wiper" perhaps?

I think there are at least two types of conservatives (and perhaps there are the same two types of liberals as well). There appears to be a first type who advocates for conservative policy primarily because they believe it is what will be best for everyone at large (I would put Friedman in this category). Another type appears to advocate conservative policies as a means of self-righteous gratification. They seem aghast at the idea that the government should take their hard earned dollars and give it to some lazy or otherwise unqualified person. When you start calling people burger-flippers and complaining that they be paid $7.25 an hour, it leads me to suspect that you may be in the latter category.

To the point of your post - I accept that raising the minimum wage has the negative effect of increasing unemployment. I would be OK with eliminating it as long as there is a social safety net that remains to prevent people from falling through the cracks when it is repealed.

As you appear to be in favor of free markets, are you also in favor of repealing restrictive immigration laws that artificially limit the supply of labor and reduce competition?

I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that we give the presidency and both houses of Congress to people that you consider "true conservatives" and institute each and every policy that you believe should be instituted.

In this free-market utopia, let's also suppose that there are still a small number of people who are unable to provide sufficiently for themselves. Let's say then that the government decides to impose a 10% tax on every person making more than one billion dollars, in order to provide for those people's needs.

Would that 10% tax be acceptable to you?

The reason I am asking this question is to get a better sense of whether you are an ideologue. In other words, I ask the question to get a better sense of whether you care more about personal freedom than you do about people.

I've worked "burger-flipper" jobs myself, as well as in plenty of other low-paid labor, and don't think there's shame in it.  It's just a common expression, for crying out loud.

And I certainly never complained about people being paid $7.25/hr. (most burger joints actually pay more than that).  It would be great if they could all be paid $15.00/hr., or $25.00/hr.  And I never accused anybody of being lazy.

But you yourself acknowledge that the government raising the minimum wage to $15.00 would increase unemployment, so I don't see a need to further belabor that point.  More unemployment is not a good thing; I'd hope you could agree to that much.  

You seem to be willfully missing the point of my post, which is that we should be focused on real solutions which strengthen the economy and create more and better job opportunities, rather than on "band-aid" fixes, such as increasing minimum wage, which don't fix the real problem.

In a strong, booming economy, both the number of job opportunities and real wages increase, as demand for labor increases.  (Witness, for instance, towns in North Dakota, where wealth is being created by oil.  Entry-level Wal-mart clerks there have starting wages of over $17.00/hr.)

 

As for your red-herring about immigration, I see no need for the unrestricted flooding of immigrants into this country, when there are still plenty of American citizens unable to find work, or who are underemployed.  A free-market economy does not equate to anarchism or general lawlessness.  And, as your friend Friedman presciently pointed out, you can't have both "open borders" and a welfare state.  That's part of what's bankrupting the nation, especially states such as California.  Illegal immigrants use far more in government programs than they contribute.

 

Ideally, I'd prefer other forms of taxation to a national income tax.  (And if you think that is a completely impossible fantasy, it's worth noting that our country went 137 years without a federal income tax.)  Of course, since we don't live in a utopia, after many years of growing government dependency, and the decline of the family and civil society, it probably wouldn't be realistic to go back immediately to the way things were.  A mere 10% tax on the wealthy would be at least a vast improvement over our current out-of-control tax and spend leviathon, so I wouldn't complain too much.

But as you've revealed your real reason behind your post, I'll confess to being a dirty, rotten Evil Conservative who doesn't care at all about people.  There.  Now I'll leave you to happily bask in smug feelings of liberal moral superiority.

 

 

[Peace]

I've worked "burger-flipper" jobs myself, as well as in plenty of other low-paid labor, and don't think there's shame in it.  It's just a common expression, for crying out loud.

Many commonly said things should not be said. Surely the majority is not your standard for right and wrong.

But you yourself acknowledge that the government raising the minimum wage to $15.00 would increase unemployment, so I don't see a need to further belabor that point.  More unemployment is not a good thing; I'd hope you could agree to that much.  

Everything else being the same, of course.

You seem to be willfully missing the point of my post, which is that we should be focused on real solutions which strengthen the economy and create more and better job opportunities, rather than on "band-aid" fixes, such as increasing minimum wage, which don't fix the real problem.

I understood the point of your post. My response was that even in a "perfect" economy you will inevitably still have people that need support from the state. You seem to suggest that for these people if a billionaire were taxed at a rate of 10% in order to support them, then you would "not complain too much".  Is that a serious answer or are you just joking around? In other words, is there something that you would seriously find objectionable about that? If so, then it would be tough for me to conclude other than that you do, in fact, value money, property or freedom more than you value people. But perhaps you can explain why that wold not necessarily have to be the case.

Let me phrase the question another way. If there were no other way to prevent person A from starving than by taxing person B and using those tax dollars to feed person A, do you have any objection to the state taxing person B to feed person A? Or would you let him starve to death because a person's freedom to do with his money as he pleases is paramount? Are you so against the idea of taxation that you would allow a person to starve to death rather than tax? I honestly don't know what your answer to the question would be. You do strike me as a bit of an ideologue and I am trying to confirm whether or not that is true.

 And, as your friend Friedman presciently pointed out, you can't have both "open borders" and a welfare state.  That's part of what's bankrupting the nation, especially states such as California.

OK. If we get rid of the welfare state can we have open borders (except for criminals, etc.)? You can't have it both ways now can you.

Ideally, I'd prefer other forms of taxation to a national income tax.  (And if you think that is a completely impossible fantasy, it's worth noting that our country went 137 years without a federal income tax.)  Of course, since we don't live in a utopia, after many years of growing government dependency, and the decline of the family and civil society, it probably wouldn't be realistic to go back immediately to the way things were.  A mere 10% tax on the wealthy would be at least a vast improvement over our current out-of-control tax and spend leviathon, so I wouldn't complain too much.

I don't think we have to have a national income tax. I prefer that things be taken care of at a local level. If they cannot, then you go up the ladder. The principle that I advocate is that it is morally right to tax the wealthy and redistribute the money to the poor when it is necessary.

But as you've revealed your real reason behind your post, I'll confess to being a dirty, rotten Evil Conservative who doesn't care at all about people.  There.  Now I'll leave you to happily bask in smug feelings of liberal moral superiority.

You type as though those type of people do not exist. There are plenty of people who make money their God (be they liberal or conservative). I am not saying that you are guilty of that. But it is something that we are all capable of being guilty of, especially living in a place as prosperous as the US, and I think it is something that most of us should be on guard about and examine our conscience for.

Sometimes you do strike me as being so dogmatic about your political beliefs that I wonder if you would be willing to let them go if Jesus sat down in front of you face to face and told you that you are wrong.

But that is just my impression, of course. I do not know if that is really the case with you.

[Anomaly]

Because some people don't see doing back-breaking work for under minimum wage as an opportunity while others do. If you are in a Mexican neighborhood that is terrorized by a drug cartel (thanks USA for the war on drugs!) then being a migrant farm worker seems a lot more appealing than living in an American neighborhood with a much higher standard of living.

It's also easier to use immigrant workers and treat them however you desire because if they try to, I don't know, demand to be treated fairly, they can expect to see the INS.

sorry, but that is just supposition on your part.  Not reality or truthful.   

I think 30 years in an industry is going to be slightly more accurate than three years reading Facebook rants. 

You are paid way more than minimum, with benefits.  You are taught a trade. It requires showing up every day, on time, sobriety, and a work ethic.  Must be able to provide legal documents for lawful presence in U.S.  

80-90% of hires can't make it a 90 days.  A few years experience with s good work ethic and you can expect around 18-20 an hour in Florida. More if you're smart and responsible enough to run a crew.   I know women who are successful at this, so it's not just physical brawn.  

But you don't get a living wage just for showing up most days and not goofing off "too much". 

[Ice_nine]

sorry, but that is just supposition on your part.  Not reality or truthful.   

I think 30 years in an industry is going to be slightly more accurate than three years reading Facebook rants. 

You are paid way more than minimum, with benefits.  You are taught a trade. It requires showing up every day, on time, sobriety, and a work ethic.  Must be able to provide legal documents for lawful presence in U.S.  

80-90% of hires can't make it a 90 days.  A few years experience with s good work ethic and you can expect around 18-20 an hour in Florida. More if you're smart and responsible enough to run a crew.   I know women who are successful at this, so it's not just physical brawn.  

But you don't get a living wage just for showing up most days and not goofing off "too much". 

I didn't make myself clear I guess. Someone asked why people still flock to our country if there is no opportunity. My point was that these "opportunities" that immigrant workers usually get (low paying jobs/poor working conditions/outright abuse) are for many people in the world better than what they currently have to deal with in their native countries.

It's not proof enough to say "well so many immigrants are coming, so there MUST be opportunities." That's not necessarily the case. And I gave one reason why. Also people come here, I'm sure with dreams of freedom and wealth, but as we all know dreams don't always come true.

Of course those things do not prove that there is no opportunity here. That was not the point of my post. My point was immigration proves nothing about actual opportunity being present here.

 

Furthermore, you personal experience is anecdotal, does not necessarily reflect wider phenomena, so pressing that as a point is not entirely convincing. I'm sure, even with your hard work-ethic, there have been people in life that had to take a flier on you somewhere, somehow. Have you considered that people aren't given a chance? That some people grow up in environments where developing a work ethic is hard because they are dealing with violence/prejudice/no community support/no visible opportunity? Maybe you emerged from one of these such environments and think "So if I can do it, anyone else should be able to," but that's just not the reality. Maybe you're special

[MIKolbe]

 

I admire the slight of hand here.....

Notice that it isn't the fault of the burger flipper that the guy on the left makes what he makes.

It is the fault of the guy on the left's boss.

Yet, to villain-ize the burger flippers, it is implied it is their fault or they should feel shame to ask for an increase in pay.

Looks like the bosses win and the workers lose, except they have you agreeing with them and degrading a fellow worker in the process.

Trump would be proud!

[little2add]

I admire the slight of hand here.....

Notice that it isn't the fault of the burger flipper that the guy on the left makes what he makes.

It is the fault of the guy on the left's boss.

Yet, to villain-ize the burger flippers, it is implied it is their fault or they should feel shame to ask for an increase in pay.

Looks like the bosses win and the workers lose, except they have you agreeing with them and degrading a fellow worker in the process.

Trump would be proud!

I am merely illustrating The difference between skilled and unskilled labor   Pay should be based  not only how hard you work but the amount of responsibility required to perform the service 

 admittedly both are underpaid    

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by little2add

[Anomaly]

I didn't make myself clear I guess. Someone asked why people still flock to our country if there is no opportunity. My point was that these "opportunities" that immigrant workers usually get (low paying jobs/poor working conditions/outright abuse) are for many people in the world better than what they currently have to deal with in their native countries.

It's not proof enough to say "well so many immigrants are coming, so there MUST be opportunities." That's not necessarily the case. And I gave one reason why. Also people come here, I'm sure with dreams of freedom and wealth, but as we all know dreams don't always come true.

Of course those things do not prove that there is no opportunity here. That was not the point of my post. My point was immigration proves nothing about actual opportunity being present here.

 

Furthermore, you personal experience is anecdotal, does not necessarily reflect wider phenomena, so pressing that as a point is not entirely convincing. I'm sure, even with your hard work-ethic, there have been people in life that had to take a flier on you somewhere, somehow. Have you considered that people aren't given a chance? That some people grow up in environments where developing a work ethic is hard because they are dealing with violence/prejudice/no community support/no visible opportunity? Maybe you emerged from one of these such environments and think "So if I can do it, anyone else should be able to," but that's just not the reality. Maybe you're special

I've not said my personal experience is the end all and be all. It's a larger data pool to surmise from.    

My grandparents, spouse, some of my brother in-laws, and others come over in boats, etc.  not all of us are native English speakers or are "white" or even European or college educated.    

I belive society has a responsibility to care for those who CANNOT care for themselves.  Family, community, government has that responsibility.   I have expectations and standards that differentiates "Cannot" from "would rather not". 

But it is easier to whine that it's specially harder for you and give up     amd stick a hand out. 

[Archaeology cat]

I was thinking specifically of people who physically cannot do something like construction, but would if possible. So that's an opportunity they don't have. Other opportunities might or might not be available, depending on location, experience, etc.

[Ice_nine]

I've not said my personal experience is the end all and be all. It's a larger data pool to surmise from.    

My grandparents, spouse, some of my brother in-laws, and others come over in boats, etc.  not all of us are native English speakers or are "white" or even European or college educated.    

I belive society has a responsibility to care for those who CANNOT care for themselves.  Family, community, government has that responsibility.   I have expectations and standards that differentiates "Cannot" from "would rather not". 

But it is easier to whine that it's specially harder for you and give up     amd stick a hand out. 

Cool, fair enough. We're probably more on the same page than you think, maybe on the same chapter anyway.

But I disagree with your last statement. Asking for things without giving anything really in return and needing so much from others while you're incapable of providing much for anyone else including yourself . . . feels really sucky. I guess it depends on the type of person.

[Socrates]

I understood the point of your post. My response was that even in a "perfect" economy you will inevitably still have people that need support from the state. You seem to suggest that for these people if a billionaire were taxed at a rate of 10% in order to support them, then you would "not complain too much".  Is that a serious answer or are you just joking around? In other words, is there something that you would seriously find objectionable about that? If so, then it would be tough for me to conclude other than that you do, in fact, value money, property or freedom more than you value people. But perhaps you can explain why that wold not necessarily have to be the case.

Let me phrase the question another way. If there were no other way to prevent person A from starving than by taxing person B and using those tax dollars to feed person A, do you have any objection to the state taxing person B to feed person A? Or would you let him starve to death because a person's freedom to do with his money as he pleases is paramount? Are you so against the idea of taxation that you would allow a person to starve to death rather than tax? I honestly don't know what your answer to the question would be. You do strike me as a bit of an ideologue and I am trying to confirm whether or not that is true.

 

 

 

 

Your twisting my words, or searching for ugly inner motivations for my beliefs, is getting a little tiresome.

Again, I don't think anyone should let people starve to death if they can prevent it.  (I thought I made that clear in another thread.)

To answer your question, if taxing people's income is in fact absolutely the only way to prevent persons from starving to death, then, yes, it would be acceptable.  I'm probably not as convinced as you are that it's the only way, and absolutely necessary, but I'm open to the possibility.  Human life itself takes precedence over property rights. (Similar to the way that it may be permissible in extreme circumstances to steal bread to save someone from starving, but that does not mean that theft should become a generally accepted policy.)

However, the insatiable tax-and-spend appetites and actions of our current leviathon state go far, far beyond feeding the starving, and the state is loathe to relinquish any new powers it is given.  I share St. John Paul II's concerns about the modern ever-growing "Social Assistance State," which is more and more becoming the reality of our government.  But I've been over all that before.

 

OK. If we get rid of the welfare state can we have open borders (except for criminals, etc.)? You can't have it both ways now can you.

From a purely economic perspective, yes (at least according to Friedman).  There are other good reasons for limiting immigration, but that's a topic for another thread.  You're the one who seems to want to have it both ways.

 

I don't think we have to have a national income tax. I prefer that things be taken care of at a local level. If they cannot, then you go up the ladder. The principle that I advocate is that it is morally right to tax the wealthy and redistribute the money to the poor when it is necessary.

It looks like we agree for the most part on the essentials.  I said before that there should be more voluntary giving on the personal, family, church, and local level.  Unfortunately, it seems we keep abdicating more and more responsibilities to the state, and the government has been an enabler of the disastrous collapse of family and positive community in the inner cities.

You type as though those type of people do not exist. There are plenty of people who make money their God (be they liberal or conservative). I am not saying that you are guilty of that. But it is something that we are all capable of being guilty of, especially living in a place as prosperous as the US, and I think it is something that most of us should be on guard about and examine our conscience for.

There are selfish and greedy persons of every political ideology.  However, it's neither fair nor accurate to characterize conservatives in general as being selfish and heartless.  Surveys consistently confirm that, as a group, conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do.

Sometimes you do strike me as being so dogmatic about your political beliefs that I wonder if you would be willing to let them go if Jesus sat down in front of you face to face and told you that you are wrong.

But that is just my impression, of course. I do not know if that is really the case with you.

Let's not confuse current liberal opinion with Jesus.  Jesus commands us to perform personal acts of giving and self-sacrifice for others.  He said nothing, however, about raising taxes, or spending more on government programs.