321–330 of 496 posts
My summer as a dishwasher made it clear tipping, already deeply stupid, is wildly unfair even to service workers. A lot of people helped you get your meal, but your dishwasher is definitely not tipped.
I had to master the dish tank first. Everyone did and everyone dished and cooked. I had to be able to run the dish tank by myself with the restaurant at full bedlam before I was able to progress as a line cook.
We were doing $40-50k a week in the early 1990s. I love doing dishes to this day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between construction and the kitchen is that if I mess up in the kitchen we're out probably less than $100. If I mess up in construction we're out significantly more in particular if it's a commercial construction job.
That's not a meaningful difference from the employee's perspective. If you mess up in either job then the worst that they can do is fire you (unless you engage in some sort of malicious sabotage that could be proven in court).
Perhaps for certain types of employees. I know that if the cost of my mistake is much higher then the level of preparation and study I'm going to do before committing to action is going to be greater. I guess some people just can't be made to work that way.
> the worst that they can do is fire you
If I lose a job in a kitchen, I can find work tomorrow, if I lose a job in construction, it's going to be harder to replace that salary. The zero sum analysis doesn't really work here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at the Country level, but unions have been able to make it mandatory in certain industries and companies. It is how they hold their power. If it was optional, they would whither away over time.
> If it was optional, they would whither away over time. In France unions are optional (in the sense of adhering to one, their presence is highly regulated and a company cannot do anything against that). They are quite strong (depending on the industry), and representatives are elected. If a union does not do anything then it indeed whither away. Now - in our case, some situations are a parody (especially in some pla…
Because of this requirement, some people argue in favor of permitting mandatory union membership, on the basis that without it, individual workers can free-ride, enjoying the superior pay and benefits the union negotiates on their behalf without joining and paying union dues.
Others argue that forcing people to join a union and pay dues is illiberal, and should be outlawed.
This is the crux of the "right-to-work law" debate, where "right-to-work" describes laws that make it illegal to require union membership as a condition of employment.
Personally, I find it odd that federal law requires labor unions to negotiate on behalf of non-members, but I am also not particularly well informed on the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the GP point, though, if it's unilaterally applied there may be unintentional consequences. Their example was working as a teenager; relatively high minimum wages may end up cutting most teenagers out of the workforce. If an employer has the choice between a 35 year old and a 15 year old for the same pay, they are generally going to hire the 35 y.o. That isn't to say minimum wage can't be raised for heads-of-house…
> a one-size-fits-all approach may cause a bunch of other issues. It may. Buy are those issues worse than the current issues? I don't think so — especially if you are inclined to look at countries where the minimum wage is close to (or above) the living wage.
That's what I consider the correct way to think about this. So do you have thought on what metrics you'd use to measure the net effect?
One of the nagging facts that bothers me is that, even as we see increases in minimum wage, there seems to be certain segments of society (particularly young men) who are disproportionately dropping out of the labor pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits Welfare does not subsidize employers, it is a subsidy /against/ employers. Giving employees welfare increases their wages because it increases their negotiating power.
Or phrased differently: If people don't starve when they won't let others exploit themselves they won't be likely to let others exploit themselves. If we apply market logic to that this would just mean that employers have to offer better deals.
I'm not sure this follows. By this logic, do you think UBI would cause employers to increase wages?
I think (given sufficient UBI), you would see some industries increase wages but many businesses fold because they are only viable by suppressing wages (which are then subsidized by taxpayers). So, yes, on one hand the remaining employers would be paying more but the overall employer base would be smaller.
Another way to think about it is that as forms of welfare go up like disability, those workers tend to fall out of the labor market. They are using that as a tool for negotiating higher wages. (granted, there many complications in this point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$10/hr was a bad wage in 2017 too unless you were in an exceptionally low COL area.
$10/hr was a bad wage in 2017 too unless you were in an exceptionally low COL area. $12.95/hour in today money. The minimum wage in 2017 was $7.25/hour.
It's a service - $3000/month includes hardware and support.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a slightly different take: if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits, you should be capped on how profitable your business is. In other words, you can be as profitable as you want but as soon as your business model relies on taxpayers to be viable, those taxpayers have a say in just how much profit is considered reasonable…
> if your business is only profitable by the taxpayer subsidizing a relatively large number of employees wages with welfare benefits Welfare does not subsidize employers, it is a subsidy /against/ employers. Giving employees welfare increases their wages because it increases their negotiating power.
Example:
-Employee needs $15/hour to 'afford life'.
-Business is only profit-positive if it pays $12/hour or less
-Assuming the employee will only accept a job if it allows them to 'afford life', as long as the government subsidizes the equivalent of $3/hour, business is able to turn a profit. Anything less than that, the employee does not accept the position and the business is not viable.
This was laughably on display a few years back when McDonald's received blowback by publishing their training that teach their employees how to apply for government assistance while they were posting outsized profits.