Walmart Giving All Employees a Raise to $10/Hour

[Mechaman]

Reading some of the posts in this thread that take the defacto "$15 an hour or bust!" line really reminds of several sayings.  The first is "this is why we can't have nice things" and the second one is something a Master of Medicine or whatever said he did not graduate college to get paid the same as a cash register at Target.

I mean, I can understand that in places like Seattle that a $12/hr job at Sonic is probably not enough to make ends meet but down here I am practically middle class and I get paid $15/hr.  If a higher minimum wage always leads to nothing but positive results, then  why don't we just go ahead and raise it to $25/hr nationwide?  Why not $50?  Why not $100?

Now, I realize this is the point where conservatives continue on with their slippery slope about how once we start raising the wage it won't stop going up, but I'm actually trying to prove a much different point here.  The first is that how much a person makes is not based on how high the dollars per hour is at their job, but the overall cost of living in their area.  Now, $8.50/hr is a really good livable wage down here. . . . . . . if you live with your parents.  I can't imagine it is a much different story elsewhere in the South or other low cost of living areas in the country.  Mind that the cost of rent down here is much cheaper than it is in very urban states.

What I'm getting at isn't that OH NO WE CAN'T RAISE IT TO $15/HR THAT IS TOO RADICAL AND SOCIALISTIC but that a raise in minimum wage is not the end all be all of solving the poverty of the working class.  It has to be complemented by other strong anti-poverty measures, namely controls on rent pricing and making college education more universal (or at least a dramatic improvement of the current loan forgiveness practices in this country).  Because as Jimmy McMillan once said "THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH!"

As for Obamanations' comments, I don't imagine that a raise to $10/hr ANYWHERE in the country will just kill anyone.  Assuming a part time employee at a small store works about 25-30 hours a week and they were previously getting paid $8.50/hr before getting bumped up to $10, it's only costing the employer about $45 more a week (basically, a tank of gas for some people), and that is before we assume any effects like increased productivity or a possible increase in profit from customer sales which could make the increase in wages neglible.  Of course, I realize that most places have more than one employee working, so let's just say for the sake of argument that there are five employees.  That is about $225 extra a week, or $900 a month (which in some places is the rent some of these poor souls have to pay).  If a business owner cannot afford that they really need to look at how they are spending their other  money or rethink their purpose for being into business ownership (let's not act like people who can go into business ownership are starving here folks).

However, I would be a liar if I said I did not have reservations about raising the minimum wage across  the country all the way to $15/hr right now.  Maybe some of that is an entitlement mentality (muh degrees mang) but I also do have some legitimate worries about how it would impact small businesses used to working with a min wage that is at least five dollars lower than that.  I do not trust a lot of states to act in the best interest of working people, so I think I speak for a lot of people when I say a federal law is probably best.  However, if it were tied to the cost of living for each state instead of a uniform flat rate, at least until other mitigating factors like rent pricing, student loan debts, utilities, etc. etc. are more equalized among the states I imagine it would go a long way.  I mean I do not like it, but business owners do run a good part of our economies but many of them really do not have an infinite supply of money.  We really do need to become a more socialist like state, but Rome wasn't built in a day guys.  

The minimum wage does need to be increased, but it really needs to be done more smartly and in concert with other cost of living factors.  Especially rent pricing, which is just insane.

Just a few thoughts of mine.

[Mechaman]

I think that the main takeaway from Mechaman's comment is the need for regional variation of minimum wages based on the local economy and cost of living. I'm hardly Mr. States' Rights, but I think the idea that it takes quite a bit more money to live in a big coastal city than it does to live in West Virginia or South Dakota is hardly controversial, and I don't see why minimum wage laws shouldn't take cost of living into account.

Yes mostly this.

Obviously, I don't support anything lower than $10/hr.  I mean I am a pretty left wing poster, but I do have an Accounting degree and I took several Economics courses.  There are some realities that we have to take into account on issues like this.

Really, we need to do more to combat the Cost of Living.  A $15/hr minimum wage won't mean much if the average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $1500/month (along with the observations of how cheaper it is to live in the South, I do not believe a $15/hr job is enough to live in some areas.  Hell, Seattle probably shoudl've gone with $17/hr).  I would support what was suggested in DC Al Fine's post about instituting a "Guaranteed Wage" by the government if necessary.  However, I do believe that there are things we can do to combat rising rent costs and the insane high cost of living in more urban areas.

I do not subscribe to ficon ideology, but that is one of the observations they have on society that I agree with.  There is something to be said about battling against runaway costs, the big debate is how we will do it.

-Mecha

[Mechaman]

I think that the main takeaway from Mechaman's comment is the need for regional variation of minimum wages based on the local economy and cost of living. I'm hardly Mr. States' Rights, but I think the idea that it takes quite a bit more money to live in a big coastal city than it does to live in West Virginia or South Dakota is hardly controversial, and I don't see why minimum wage laws shouldn't take cost of living into account.

Yes mostly this.

Obviously, I don't support anything lower than $10/hr.  I mean I am a pretty left wing poster, but I do have an Accounting degree and I took several Economics courses.  There are some realities that we have to take into account on issues like this.

Really, we need to do more to combat the Cost of Living.  A $15/hr minimum wage won't mean much if the average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $1500/month (along with the observations of how cheaper it is to live in the South, I do not believe a $15/hr job is enough to live in some areas.  Hell, Seattle probably shoudl've gone with $17/hr).  I would support what was suggested in DC Al Fine's post about instituting a "Guaranteed Wage" by the government if necessary.  However, I do believe that there are things we can do to combat rising rent costs and the insane high cost of living in more urban areas.

I do not subscribe to ficon ideology, but that is one of the observations they have on society that I agree with.  There is something to be said about battling against runaway costs, the big debate is how we will do it.

-Mecha

Out of curiosity Mecha, what sort of standard of living do you think the minimum wage/guaranteed income should provide?

I was thinking enough to provide for the occupant and any of their household members.  At the very least, enough government income to cover the rent and basic groceries, depending on the cost of living in that area.  If there is a dire need they can get coverage for utilities, but basically enough money to cover the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, yada yada).