Why are minimum wage jobs so crappy? Do they have to be?

[Jotto999]

I've been thinking of the differences between the financial classes of society, of first world countries that is.

My question: is it some kind of necessity for society that the lower class, minimum wage-type jobs have to be as bad as they are? There are a lot of full time jobs out there that you can't really make a living off of, particularly if you have a family to take care of. Some minimum wage jobs are boring, repetitive and any teenager could do it, whereas others are honestly pretty difficult and most people would definitely not be willing to do them, especially for the wage that they pay.

What concerns me is the fact that these jobs are a necessary part of society, even if most people don't look at it that way, but the wage is as if they are not necessary. No matter how educated, intelligent, skillful or able people are, there will still be toilets to clean, burgers to flip, and counters that need someone to stand behind them all day to give you your change. Someone is going to have to do those, and the part time teenagers aside, someone is going to have to make a living on a minimum wage job. Millions of people do.


I'm not saying that all jobs should pay the same, or that jobs which require years of additional education should only pay slightly more. But I wonder, isn't there currently too big a gap? Why do the lower wage jobs have to pay so little that often it's not actually enough to live off, when those jobs are still very much a necessary part of society?

The answer is probably something pretty simple that I'm missing. I just don't see why it has to be the way it is. Maybe I'm too idealistic?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's a feature of capitalism, not a defect. Those jobs are crappy in large part because if they weren't, there would be a stronger middle class that would expect benefits and decent treatment and have the time to organize, and next thing you know capitalism starts working for everyone, and not just the richest 1%.

 

[Aught3]

Don't you think you've identified the main point though?

No matter how educated, intelligent, skillful or able people are, there will still be toilets to clean, burgers to flip, and counters that need someone to stand behind them all day to give you your change.

These jobs aren't skilled and therefore anyone can do them. This creates a large pool of people willing to sell their labour in order to do these jobs - even if the pay is decreased to an insulting amount there will still be people who need the money. The wage will stay as low as possible while still getting enough people in to do the jobs.

I agree with Joe this is a feature of capitalism, except in pure capitalism we wouldn't have this nonsense about a minimum wage and allow the hourly wage to drop even lower. Thankfully, we have the government to interfere in the market.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I agree with Joe this is a feature of capitalism, except in pure capitalism we wouldn't have this nonsense about a minimum wage and allow the hourly wage to drop even lower. Thankfully, we have the government to interfere in the market.

Right. Slavery in everything but name would be the ultimate result if not for government interference... and it is close to that anyway.

 

[Jotto999]

That's a feature of capitalism, not a defect. Those jobs are crappy in large part because if they weren't, there would be a stronger middle class that would expect benefits and decent treatment and have the time to organize, and next thing you know capitalism starts working for everyone, and not just the richest 1%.

This was one of the two answers I was expecting, and it's the one I agree with.

What also bothers me about the large gap between the classes is the fact that most people don't chose which 'class' they will be. Rich people tend to have rich parents or relatives that could pay for whatever advantage you can buy, sticking that child in the best schools and getting whatever tutoring and boosts here and there, giving the kid all the comfort and support and making it so much easier for that kid to also end up with a high paying job. Likewise, people in the lower classes generally grew up in that class, with parents that didn't make a lot of money. The same advantages and help and comfort the rich kid received will not be seen by the lower class kid. Both kids pretty much have their wage already set in stone, before even being born. I think this effect is maybe not caused by capitalism, but amplified by it.

 

[Jotto999]

Don't you think you've identified the main point though?

These jobs aren't skilled and therefore anyone can do them. This creates a large pool of people willing to sell their labour in order to do these jobs - even if the pay is decreased to an insulting amount there will still be people who need the money. The wage will stay as low as possible while still getting enough people in to do the jobs.

I agree with Joe this is a feature of capitalism, except in pure capitalism we wouldn't have this nonsense about a minimum wage and allow the hourly wage to drop even lower. Thankfully, we have the government to interfere in the market.

I see.

So I guess my next question is, in order to improve society for the well being of everyone, shouldn't there be more government intervention than there currently is?

Yeah, that's basically going to the old left wing vs right wing economy debate. How might someone who is in favour of less government intervention try to argue against the points brought up in this thread?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Yeah, that's basically going to the old left wing vs right wing economy debate. How might someone who is in favour of less government intervention try to argue against the points brought up in this thread?

They'll say things that are pretty disturbing and sickening, if experience is any guide. They'll claim that minimum wage people somehow DESERVE to be poor, and that the answer is that everyone go to school and get a better education... as though 100% of the world could be millionaires, and therefore poor people want to be poor and are just too lazy to get CEO jobs.

 

[Aught3]

Well I think the argument against minimum wages centres on the fact that it is a price ... floor (I think, I always get price ceilings and floors mixed up). Anyway, by setting the wage price artificially high, the government ends up reducing the number of jobs available this is because employees will be willing to employ less people at the higher price. A minimum wage is good news for people with jobs but bad news for those who loose them.

I think the arguments for left vs. right economics basically boil down to:
Pure capitalism fastest economic growth which improves everybody's standard of living over the long term (even those at the low end).
Regulated capitalism sacrifices some of the fast growth and benefits that the top group would gain to help those at the bottom to improve their income, health, and standard of living.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think the arguments basically boil down to:
Pure capitalism fastest economic growth which improves everybody's standard of living over the long term (even those at the low end).
Regulated capitalism sacrifices some of the fast growth and benefits that the top group would gain to help those at the bottom to improve their income, health, and standard of living.

Since the first one fails every time, the only logical thing is to either embrace the second or scrap capitalism entirely.

 

[Aught3]

...or scrap capitalism entirely.

Any thoughts on what we would replace it with?

Since the first one fails every time

Not for the people at the top, until the next recession anyway :lol:

 

[borrofburi]

Minimum wage sets a price floor, as Aught3 noted. If you set the price floor too high, you create a loss of jobs and a black market, labor is a good like any other. However because our society has a relatively low labor surplus, we rarely see these effects of minimum wage (we are starting to see them more due to outsourcing) and merely see the positive effects.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Any thoughts on what we would replace it with?

Once we've eliminated the stock brokers and bankers and the rest of the parasite class, we could rebuild a more equitable blended system.

One of the odd and stupid/crazy ideas from "free market" ideologues is the idea that if you don't allow for unlimited profits at the expense of all other concerns, there will be no more innovation or striving for excellence. The opposite is true, however: America's "golden years" were the heavily taxed and regulated years after WWII, and the country has fallen behind more and more as "free market" parasites have gained more and more control.

 

[stratos]

playing the devils advocate here, since I do actually strongly believe in a a government that governs, but here goes.

In a pure capitalistic society the salaries will drop, but only till the point were the quality of the product is still acceptable, at which point competing firms will start to battle on quality and salaries will rise.
This gives the diversity of quality for consumers, and in the same way, the difference in salaries and jobs and the supposed skills necessary. I say supposedly, because in this example I can still see unskilled labour across the board. Other attributes of the employee will become a factor though, the more quality driven shops will want to have well spoken, well groomed employees for instance. Which isn't skill, but is a important distinction.

Then most importantly, employees don't just stick with the job they have, almost in the same way as with the companies themselves, after building up experience they will want to get a job with better qualities, be it salary, work environment or hours.

And yes, in this world the people who want a better life, a better job, will have to work for it. Build up experience, learn to groom themselves, learn how to treat customers and learn their respecting business.

But the key part is of course the salaries. Yes the lowest 10% will be well under minimum, but with companies starting to compete on quality they will increase their prices accordingly, this means that there is more money for salaries. Please note, that these companies have now begun to compete on quality, because there is no point in competing on price because of the lowest 10% of companies that are already dominating that market.

What this means for a strapping young lad without an education is that he will have to work trough that lowest 10% to build up experience. That's bad, because they don't pay enough to sustain. But with an artificial limit, there is no lowest 10%, there are no companies that can undercut the established order, the established order has (because of the limit) already improved their process to perfection. Because of this, there is also no incentive for the established order to start competing on quality, they can already crush all their competition on price alone. Meaning that all companies will start and end on the minimum salary limit.

In a true free market these established order companies would not have the time to sink in, they would be slaughtered by the competition if they did. It's because of government meddling and artificial rules and limits that these companies can exist.

 

[WolfAU]

I agree with both Aught and IJoe, the fact that they're unskilled labour (and thus anyone can do them) and the desired political effects (keeping the masses busy, productive, poor and distracted). Then you've got issues like if skilled labour is not more profitable or desireable jobs as unskilled labour, what is the motivation to get those jobs and get the training (usually expensive) for them?

To fix this you'd need to heavily embrace socialism or TRUE communism (I distinguish between the true ideal of the political philosophy, and what is being practiced in Communist countries).

Government intervention really depends on the HOW and WHY. Governments throughout recent Western history have been decant, corrupt, lazy and fucking incompetant, but these are not necessarily traits of governments, just very common. If thoe governments interfere in business, likely they would do so very poorly, and do so not with our best interests at heart. However I don't support a kind of laissez-faire government, whether it be social or economic, as this basically means that the government gives up some of its power, which is taken up by big business, and I don't really trust either of them with power (but at least governments are more accountable, placed under greater scrutiny and have more legal safeguards against government abuses of power).

Suffice it to say, I support making more casual jobs better, and making the poorer classes lifestyle more bearable, along with reducing the wealth, power, influence of the incredibly wealthy classes, but its not a particularly simple issue. Generally my approach would be still have the pay be shit, but more social services like socialised medicine, a much fairer welfare/support system etc.

 

[stratos]

..snip..

Well then, how do you explain that the social democracies with an emphasis on free market have a much larger PPP then the last few beacons of communism. Communism is a nice idea, but incompatible with actual humans. Without proper incentives, people will perform mediocre. In nations with a free market, money is that incentive and people excel. As such, the economy excels and the standard of living goes up; creating even happier people.

Also, not all unskilled labour is badly paid, here where I live, garbage men have a pretty good salary. supply and demand, nobody wants to be a garbage man.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well then, how do you explain that the social democracies with an emphasis on free market have a much larger PPP then the last few beacons of communism. Communism is a nice idea, but incompatible with actual humans. Without proper incentives, people will perform mediocre. In nations with a free market, money is that incentive and people excel. As such, the economy excels and the standard of living goes up; creating even happier people.

So why is it that nothing you said is actually happening in America?

 

[Jotto999]

I agree with both Aught and IJoe, the fact that they're unskilled labour (and thus anyone can do them) and the desired political effects (keeping the masses busy, productive, poor and distracted). Then you've got issues like if skilled labour is not more profitable or desireable jobs as unskilled labour, what is the motivation to get those jobs and get the training (usually expensive) for them?

To fix this you'd need to heavily embrace socialism or TRUE communism (I distinguish between the true ideal of the political philosophy, and what is being practiced in Communist countries).

Government intervention really depends on the HOW and WHY. Governments throughout recent Western history have been decant, corrupt, lazy and fucking incompetant, but these are not necessarily traits of governments, just very common. If thoe governments interfere in business, likely they would do so very poorly, and do so not with our best interests at heart. However I don't support a kind of laissez-faire government, whether it be social or economic, as this basically means that the government gives up some of its power, which is taken up by big business, and I don't really trust either of them with power (but at least governments are more accountable, placed under greater scrutiny and have more legal safeguards against government abuses of power).

Suffice it to say, I support making more casual jobs better, and making the poorer classes lifestyle more bearable, along with reducing the wealth, power, influence of the incredibly wealthy classes, but its not a particularly simple issue. Generally my approach would be still have the pay be shit, but more social services like socialised medicine, a much fairer welfare/support system etc.

I see what you`re saying, this makes a lot of sense to me. Instead of increasing the minimum wage, have socialized services such that the cost of living comfortably is lower anyways, so people who have crappy jobs at least can be guaranteed decent living standards, even if they don`t have much money. Thank you for your post.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I see what you`re saying, this makes a lot of sense to me. Instead of increasing the minimum wage, have socialized services such that the cost of living comfortably is lower anyways, so people who have crappy jobs at least can be guaranteed decent living standards, even if they don`t have much money. Thank you for your post.

If someone insists on a more "market" solution, you could give businesses the choice of providing good wages and benefits, or being taxed at a level that will allow the government to take up the slack.

 

[WolfAU]

The problem with increasing minimum wage without decreasing the cost of living is it leads to MASSIVE inflation, and the benefit of having quality social services is that there is some social protection in the form of knowing that no matter what happens, you'll always be able to afford medical treatments etc, as yesterdays rich businessman can quickly lose everything and tomorrow end up on the street. The less dog-eat-dog we make our society, the better imo (I've made this point to many in arguing in favour of various social systems). Another approach could be better systems of conditional financial support (ie free financial help in some situations, cheaper loans, cheaper services, free legal help etc). Giving people a "free ride" is usually a bad idea (it leads to a sense of entitlement), but helping people stay afloat or get a fair loan is not the same thing.

Well then, how do you explain that the social democracies with an emphasis on free market have a much larger PPP then the last few beacons of communism. Communism is a nice idea, but incompatible with actual humans. Without proper incentives, people will perform mediocre. In nations with a free market, money is that incentive and people excel. As such, the economy excels and the standard of living goes up; creating even happier people.

Also, not all unskilled labour is badly paid, here where I live, garbage men have a pretty good salary. supply and demand, nobody wants to be a garbage man.

First off, there are dozens of things "PPP" can stand for, you should've really clarified but I'm guessing you mean "Purchasing power parity". Second I addressed that I am in favour of TRUE communism, as in the political and philosophical ideal, such a thing has never been practiced in recent human history, and even then, in other threads I've expressed my stance that for almost all political matters I argue in favour of some kind of mixed/hybrid system (ie true capitalism is horrible, and true communism is ineffective).

Ok, obviously a very economically/free-market orientated country will be more prosperous than one more interested in wealth distribution, as the poor do not build economies, or at least not as fast as big business. We do such things because there is more to life (hopefully) than chasing the bottom line, and any person or country that behaves in such a way concerns me. I mean whats to stop us re-instituting slavery, it would make a nations economy skyrocket, I mean hell, as IJoe points out, America's approach to minimum wage is damn near there already. Hopefully a society is prepared to accept some things that reduce their economic prosperity in the name of DOING WHATS RIGHT, what helps make life more reasonable for those less well off (or if you're just looking out for yourself, what helps stabilise the country, reduces crime, poverty, desperation etc, and makes a nice safety net for you and those you love should you fall on hard times).

So yeah, I'm not denying that capitalism is good for the economy, my point is "so what?"

What makes you say communism is "incompatable with actual humans", the tribal system we lived under for thousands of years (and many humans still use) is a communist system and it worked just fine. It doesn't lead to massive coorporations and personal computers, but it works.

People can have reasons to excel beyond purely financial, without repeating too much points I've made elsewhere on this topic, if I'm a researcher and I make a meaningful discovery and don't get rich off it, I'm not going to be sitting there thinking "pfft, why'd I even bother", NO, I've contributed to the works that have lead me to this point (standing on the shoulders of giants), I've recieved respect and recognition from my peers and will likely have my choice of future research projects, thats more than good enough for me (hell, if I spent 10 years to make a major medical breakthrough and people cursed me for it, I'd still do it, call me a bleeding heart philanthropist). Again, anyone who sees no motivation in life beyond financial conserns me (but not only that, having reputation and good will among consumers can ensure future financial stability and prosperity, something that seems to be lost on American businesses).

"creating even happier people. " *facepalm*, I don't even know where to begin pointing out the problems with that statement... what the hell makes you think people who are wealthier are happier? (Keep in mind that America's standard of living hasn't improved, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer).

The question I put to you is "what is the ultimate goal of a Nation?" Economy wealth/growth or standard of living/happiness of the people? What happens when these two goals collide? Which do you choose?

 

[IBSpify]

Flipping hamburgers is truthfully never a job that will ever give anything resembling a living wage, (which nowadays is around $20 an hour depending on where you live) if you start paying people $20 to flip hamburgers imagine what that does to the price of said hamburgers.

That being said, not all labor jobs are low paying, truck drivers make decent money and the only requirement is to be able pass the driving test and maintain a good driving record. Any job associated with a Labor union (teamsters, and the like) will be decent paying that honestly require little to no skill.

It's not that the jobs do not exist but there are a lot of people who don't possess the skill or knowledge to do anything else so there is a large market for those jobs