how do you figure? receiving $45k/year from a $18.75/hour wage (or $48k from $20/hour) would require working more than 46 hours per week for 52 weeks each year, which would require either 6 work days per week or more than 9 hours per day (and zero vacation).
I’m curious as to the formula you used, especially since your two examples have the exact same ratio.
I always use 2000 hours in a work year, because that’s easier to do in my head. The correct number is supposed to be like 2082 or something. But I think that’s all 52 weeks…
That’d be $21.61/hr.
If you use 2k straight, then it’s $22.50/hr. Given that even minimum wage workers tend to get some holidays (those who aren’t retail anyway), it’s probably closer to this.
I’m not sure I understand the obsession with minimum wage laws. I suspect they result in more poverty not less. While it is true that the government can compel companies to pay some minimum rate, and that few if any attempt to pay lower unreported wages… short of a far larger set of constraints on behavior this will only create all sorts of bizarre and perverse incentives.
If a company pays five people at barely-livable wages with minimum wage A, they won’t pay those same five people more-livable wages at (higher) minimum wage B. Instead, they’ll fire two of them, and demand the other three do more work. You’ve just improved the scenario for those three, while making the other two more destitute. Large corporations will just eat the cost, likely (they can afford it), and doing so relives some pressure for unionization anyway, so it might be a bargain.
So we’re talking about small (even tiny) businesses, for which unionization pressures are non-existent, or who will deal with it in such a way that the business is tanked and all five lose their jobs. Sure, maybe the owner of that small business is punished too, and if that’s what you’re going for then do a little victory dance, you’ve succeeded. But now we’ve even more who are destitute, not fewer.
I’m with you-- I have a hard time feeling bad for business owners and I’m far more concerned with employees being able to earn a livable wage. $18.75/hour is still far from a living wage and the expectation that anyone should be willing to work with zero vacation, paid or unpaid, is absurd and out of touch.
I used to be of the mindset that I should make a conscious effort to buy local but in the recent years I’ve realized that many business owners who don’t pay their employees a livable wage just use "buy local" as a way to mislead consumers into thinking they’re helping out working class people when in reality, they’re unknowingly just making business owners wealthier than they already are.
Even small business owners whose businesses are suffering… I really have a hard time feeling bad for them given the fact that it’s their employees who are suffering far more. If the business ultimately fails, again I don’t see why it makes sense to feel more empathy for a failed business owner than their employees, as both parties are now unemployed and the business owner most likely owns assets at least worth something while the employees likely own little to no assets.
All these people talking about how minimum wage does little good… it’s baffling to read their comments because it’s almost as if they’ve never made a genuine effort to stop and think about how much more exploitation of working class people there would be if we got rid of minimum wage. This is the kind of mindset that glorifies child labor and sells it as an experience that builds character, while disingenuously leaving out all the negative aspects of child labor that ultimately come to a country’s detriment more than benefit.
I don’t see why it makes sense to feel more empathy for a failed business owner than their employees, as both parties are now unemployed and the business owner most likely owns assets at least worth something while the employees likely own little to no assets.
I won’t tell you which you should feel more sorry for. It’s a pointless exercise. You feeling sorry for them won’t help them.
But if you supported the policy which caused them to be destitute, aren’t you the problem?
It’s this sort of magical thinking that if you raise the minimum wage by statute, that somehow everyone who is currently paid less than that will suddenly be paid more… it’s unrealistic. Fewer people will be employed at that higher rate, and the others will just have nothing.
What are you going to do about them? Do they just have to take one for the team?
I don’t recall saying or implying that me feeling sorry for employees more than business owners will help them. I do however believe feeling sorry for them is a step in the direction of understanding the struggles of employees, which is important to me as I’m interested in helping the majority of working class people.
But if you supported the policy which caused them to be destitute, aren’t you the problem?
What policy are you referring to, minimum wage? If so, are you really of the belief that abolishing minimum wage wouldn’t result in a sharp increase working class people struggling to make a living wage?
It’s this sort of magical thinking that if you raise the minimum wage by statute, that somehow everyone who is currently paid less than that will suddenly be paid more… it’s unrealistic. Fewer people will be employed at that higher rate, and the others will just have nothing.
So let me ask you… you really are of the belief that business owners who staunchly oppose minimum wage are doing so in part because they want what’s best for their employees? Come on, and you’re accusing me of “magical thinking”? Why do you think corporations are largely opposed to increases in minimum wage? Given the enormous wealth gap between the rich and the poor, something tells me these people can take one for their team and pay employees a livable wage.
Also, why did you avoid addressing the other points I made in my original comment?
By the same logic, why shouldn’t people be able to sell themselves into indentured servitude, right?
As I understand “indentured servitude”, I’m pretty sure they already can. Certainly not slavery, the terms of such a contract are unconscionable, but the idea that you’d be contracted to labor for some temporary period for food, lodging, and passage doesn’t seem to violate contract law as I understand it.
Though, that said, how does your rhetorical question follow from my logic? I’m not seeing the connection here. My logic is that minimum wage laws have an effect contrary towards that which you’re trying to achieve. Or at least, towards that which most people believe you’re trying to achieve.
Clearly, you want small businesses to die, and for gigantic corporations to flourish, while some large fraction of the population starves because now they’re out of jobs. I don’t know why I didn’t pick up on it before.
That $45k a year is about equivalent to $18.75/hr. Which is a pretty good target for a new minimum wage, I think. $20/hr would be $48k.
Nitter link to OP
how do you figure? receiving $45k/year from a $18.75/hour wage (or $48k from $20/hour) would require working more than 46 hours per week for 52 weeks each year, which would require either 6 work days per week or more than 9 hours per day (and zero vacation).
I’m curious as to the formula you used, especially since your two examples have the exact same ratio.
I always use 2000 hours in a work year, because that’s easier to do in my head. The correct number is supposed to be like 2082 or something. But I think that’s all 52 weeks…
That’d be $21.61/hr.
If you use 2k straight, then it’s $22.50/hr. Given that even minimum wage workers tend to get some holidays (those who aren’t retail anyway), it’s probably closer to this.
I’m not sure I understand the obsession with minimum wage laws. I suspect they result in more poverty not less. While it is true that the government can compel companies to pay some minimum rate, and that few if any attempt to pay lower unreported wages… short of a far larger set of constraints on behavior this will only create all sorts of bizarre and perverse incentives.
If a company pays five people at barely-livable wages with minimum wage A, they won’t pay those same five people more-livable wages at (higher) minimum wage B. Instead, they’ll fire two of them, and demand the other three do more work. You’ve just improved the scenario for those three, while making the other two more destitute. Large corporations will just eat the cost, likely (they can afford it), and doing so relives some pressure for unionization anyway, so it might be a bargain.
So we’re talking about small (even tiny) businesses, for which unionization pressures are non-existent, or who will deal with it in such a way that the business is tanked and all five lose their jobs. Sure, maybe the owner of that small business is punished too, and if that’s what you’re going for then do a little victory dance, you’ve succeeded. But now we’ve even more who are destitute, not fewer.
By the same logic, why shouldn’t people be able to sell themselves into indentured servitude, right?
Really, the abolition of slavery is continuing to hurt small businesses to this day. Won’t someone think of the small business owners?! 🤮
I’m with you-- I have a hard time feeling bad for business owners and I’m far more concerned with employees being able to earn a livable wage. $18.75/hour is still far from a living wage and the expectation that anyone should be willing to work with zero vacation, paid or unpaid, is absurd and out of touch.
I used to be of the mindset that I should make a conscious effort to buy local but in the recent years I’ve realized that many business owners who don’t pay their employees a livable wage just use "buy local" as a way to mislead consumers into thinking they’re helping out working class people when in reality, they’re unknowingly just making business owners wealthier than they already are.
Even small business owners whose businesses are suffering… I really have a hard time feeling bad for them given the fact that it’s their employees who are suffering far more. If the business ultimately fails, again I don’t see why it makes sense to feel more empathy for a failed business owner than their employees, as both parties are now unemployed and the business owner most likely owns assets at least worth something while the employees likely own little to no assets.
All these people talking about how minimum wage does little good… it’s baffling to read their comments because it’s almost as if they’ve never made a genuine effort to stop and think about how much more exploitation of working class people there would be if we got rid of minimum wage. This is the kind of mindset that glorifies child labor and sells it as an experience that builds character, while disingenuously leaving out all the negative aspects of child labor that ultimately come to a country’s detriment more than benefit.
I won’t tell you which you should feel more sorry for. It’s a pointless exercise. You feeling sorry for them won’t help them.
But if you supported the policy which caused them to be destitute, aren’t you the problem?
It’s this sort of magical thinking that if you raise the minimum wage by statute, that somehow everyone who is currently paid less than that will suddenly be paid more… it’s unrealistic. Fewer people will be employed at that higher rate, and the others will just have nothing.
What are you going to do about them? Do they just have to take one for the team?
I don’t recall saying or implying that me feeling sorry for employees more than business owners will help them. I do however believe feeling sorry for them is a step in the direction of understanding the struggles of employees, which is important to me as I’m interested in helping the majority of working class people.
What policy are you referring to, minimum wage? If so, are you really of the belief that abolishing minimum wage wouldn’t result in a sharp increase working class people struggling to make a living wage?
So let me ask you… you really are of the belief that business owners who staunchly oppose minimum wage are doing so in part because they want what’s best for their employees? Come on, and you’re accusing me of “magical thinking”? Why do you think corporations are largely opposed to increases in minimum wage? Given the enormous wealth gap between the rich and the poor, something tells me these people can take one for their team and pay employees a livable wage.
Also, why did you avoid addressing the other points I made in my original comment?
As I understand “indentured servitude”, I’m pretty sure they already can. Certainly not slavery, the terms of such a contract are unconscionable, but the idea that you’d be contracted to labor for some temporary period for food, lodging, and passage doesn’t seem to violate contract law as I understand it.
Though, that said, how does your rhetorical question follow from my logic? I’m not seeing the connection here. My logic is that minimum wage laws have an effect contrary towards that which you’re trying to achieve. Or at least, towards that which most people believe you’re trying to achieve.
Clearly, you want small businesses to die, and for gigantic corporations to flourish, while some large fraction of the population starves because now they’re out of jobs. I don’t know why I didn’t pick up on it before.