You gotta be insane if you think someone can look forward to a bright future on a $5 an hour wage. FYI there are millions of workers in the US who already earn $5 an hour or in some cases even less. The millions of undocumented immigrants. Even in the current US economy almost anyone who wants just any low paying job can find one. Many part-time and low paying job openings in the US go unfilled for months. Many people remain unemployed because obviously they are not interested in working in minimum wage jobs. Get yourself a proper education. Listening to right wing talk radio and YouTube videos is not a substitute for a proper education. Your economic analysis skills are no better than those of a grade 11 economics student.
why the minimum wage is bad
- Thread starter msog87
- Start date
so why are entry level jobs are increasingly calling for experience required? what happen to simple on the job training?
A few thoughts
1. I take exception to statements such as "One can not live on Minimum wage" or "how is a person excepted to raise a family on that salary / wage?"
A company is formed / exists in order to provide a return on investment to the owners
It does not have the explicit responsibility of providing an excepted standard for living for its employees
2. It is each individuals responsibility to acquire the skills / education which are in demand in order to be compensated with higher wages.
This became apparent to me shortly after I started my first paper route when I was a kid
(Ironic as the paper route skills are no longer in demand)
The need to acquire "in demand" skills / education is far more relevant today as we are in a much more competitive environment and the opportunities to make excessive wages in exchange for limited skills have disappeared (UAW / CAW)
However many young people still drop out of school and / or fail to acquire any marketable skills, while still expecting a certain lifestyle
As a group they are unbelievably naïve and will either
a) require an economic slap in the face to wake up and acquire marketable skills or
b) be a net burden on the economy's productivity levels and a net burden on society
3. Government intervention in the economy has historically been an abysmal failure
Well intended ideals more often
a) produce layers of bureaucracy
b) result in reductions in productivity
c) do not result in the intended outcome
d) creation of dependants who look to the gov't to solve their problems rather than take the initiative themselves
4. Working for the "Minimum wage" is extremely difficult. Raising a family on such a wage is virtually impossible
Anyone who accepts such a wage as their longer-term income is doomed to a life of poor living accommodations, credit problems, accumulation of debt and very limited access to material goods we all desire.
However raising the minimum wage by a couple of dollars will not change that lifestyle
It may slow down the accumulation of debt and temporarily postpone the inevitable disaster.
However the only way for an individual to change such a lifestyle is to acquire marketable skills
In fact, raising the minimum wage will result in the losses or postponement of incremental hiring and even provide false hope to many who incorrectly think an extra $2 /hr will correct the problems that require an extra $10 to $20 /hr, which will only be achieved through the acquisition of marketable skills
1. I take exception to statements such as "One can not live on Minimum wage" or "how is a person excepted to raise a family on that salary / wage?"
A company is formed / exists in order to provide a return on investment to the owners
It does not have the explicit responsibility of providing an excepted standard for living for its employees
2. It is each individuals responsibility to acquire the skills / education which are in demand in order to be compensated with higher wages.
This became apparent to me shortly after I started my first paper route when I was a kid
(Ironic as the paper route skills are no longer in demand)
The need to acquire "in demand" skills / education is far more relevant today as we are in a much more competitive environment and the opportunities to make excessive wages in exchange for limited skills have disappeared (UAW / CAW)
However many young people still drop out of school and / or fail to acquire any marketable skills, while still expecting a certain lifestyle
As a group they are unbelievably naïve and will either
a) require an economic slap in the face to wake up and acquire marketable skills or
b) be a net burden on the economy's productivity levels and a net burden on society
3. Government intervention in the economy has historically been an abysmal failure
Well intended ideals more often
a) produce layers of bureaucracy
b) result in reductions in productivity
c) do not result in the intended outcome
d) creation of dependants who look to the gov't to solve their problems rather than take the initiative themselves
4. Working for the "Minimum wage" is extremely difficult. Raising a family on such a wage is virtually impossible
Anyone who accepts such a wage as their longer-term income is doomed to a life of poor living accommodations, credit problems, accumulation of debt and very limited access to material goods we all desire.
However raising the minimum wage by a couple of dollars will not change that lifestyle
It may slow down the accumulation of debt and temporarily postpone the inevitable disaster.
However the only way for an individual to change such a lifestyle is to acquire marketable skills
In fact, raising the minimum wage will result in the losses or postponement of incremental hiring and even provide false hope to many who incorrectly think an extra $2 /hr will correct the problems that require an extra $10 to $20 /hr, which will only be achieved through the acquisition of marketable skills
Exactly and most entry level jobs now require an MA and not your simple BA. Talk about credential inflation.
Rather than raise the minimum wage, perhaps a better solution might be to raise the basic personal exemption, so that people earning 'poverty level' wages pay less tax.
For someone living paycheck to paycheck, the amount of net pay is more important than gross pay. It wouldn't cost more to the Employer, and the government would recoup the tax money lost because more people who are financially on the margins of society might chose to take a low paying job rather than receive Social Assistance payments.
Suppose that someone has the option of working 35 hours per week at $10 per hour, or receiving $900 monthly in Government benefits. If we define a month as 3.5 weeks, option 1 yields $1,420 gross income per month, less Income Tax, payroll taxes, (EI/CPP, etc.), so let's call that $1,300 net. In addition, there are employment related expenses, (transportation, work appropriate clothing, the difference in cost between a purchased coffee and one brewed at home, etc.), that the individual would not incur if they were not working. Let's call that an additional $200 per month.
From the perspective of this low wage earner, they are effectively 'working for' $1.40 per hour, (ie: they work 142 hours to receive $200 more than they would be given for doing nothing).
For someone living paycheck to paycheck, the amount of net pay is more important than gross pay. It wouldn't cost more to the Employer, and the government would recoup the tax money lost because more people who are financially on the margins of society might chose to take a low paying job rather than receive Social Assistance payments.
Suppose that someone has the option of working 35 hours per week at $10 per hour, or receiving $900 monthly in Government benefits. If we define a month as 3.5 weeks, option 1 yields $1,420 gross income per month, less Income Tax, payroll taxes, (EI/CPP, etc.), so let's call that $1,300 net. In addition, there are employment related expenses, (transportation, work appropriate clothing, the difference in cost between a purchased coffee and one brewed at home, etc.), that the individual would not incur if they were not working. Let's call that an additional $200 per month.
From the perspective of this low wage earner, they are effectively 'working for' $1.40 per hour, (ie: they work 142 hours to receive $200 more than they would be given for doing nothing).
Of course a company does have an obligation to provide a livable wage for it's employees. Employees are stakeholders. The company is free to hire or fire workers or to relocate. If they want to do business and employ people in Canada, they need to abide by our conditions. Same with the US. If they cannot pay a livable wage and deliver their product at a profit, then the business is not worth conducting.
Absolutely not
If I start a company, the primary objective is to create a profit.
Providing a living wage to employees is a positive secondary outcome, however not an explicit objective and certainly not a go or no go consideration when evaluating the risks of the venture
If employees are needed they should be compensated to the extent they add to the creation of the economic profit.
Many employees add a great deal to the creation of the economic profit and should be rewarded as such
Rewards must be based upon outcome, not a government regulation
If governments regulate employees must be paid in excess of the economic value they provide, business will examine all available avenues to eliminate this excess including
a) upgrading the skill levels of employees so they can provide economic value inline with the cost of the employee
b) replace the employee with technology
c) eliminate the position
d) move their operations to a jurisdiction where regulations are driven by economic realities and the need to be competitive, as opposed to unrealistic left wing social agendas.
e) forego the creation of a new enterprise altogether
Employees are stakeholders to the extent of the value they provide
Owners / shareholders have a much greater stake relative to the risk they have taken to build the business.
Lefties make the mistake of thinking that acceptance of an offer of employment or joining a union entitles them to a much greater claim on the economic profits of a company, however they are not willing to take on the risk of economic loss.
A risk which is incrementally increased with each regulation which increases the costs of doing business
Compensation levels are driven by a balance of
a) the supply and demand for the skills employees can offer
b) the profitability of the company
c) the need to re-invest in the company to ensure growth and sustainability
d) the need to service debt
e) the need to provide owners with a return commensurate with the risk they are taking
Providing a certain standard of living for employees is not a primary consideration and only comes into play when considering the supply of required skills needed
Like it or not, that is the way it is and raising the minimum wage will not correct poverty in North America , it will only
a) reduce productivity
b) reduce our competitiveness in a ever more competitive world
If you don't consider that and try to start a business in Canada, then you will fail...that is what a minimum wage will drive you to. If your business does not have enough value add to generate a profit and pay decent wages...and cannot be run by yourself, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT START IT. It's really that simple.
Of course raising the minimum wage will not eliminate poverty, but you talk as though reducing poverty is not worthwhile? Most min wage jobs are local services, (retail etc) so to bring it into the context of international competition is nonsense....it may have a small impact. \
Raising the minimum wage WILL increase domestic consumption and grow the economy. It will act as a mechanism of redistribution to some degree. It will also grow the tax base and reduce the deficit. Small amounts of employment may be lost and there will also be a small amount of inflation as prices are adjusted to pay for the increase.
of course you don;t have a bright future making $5 an hour, the idea is to strive for a better life and learn valuable skills in the workplace. Like ive said which you choose to ignore, we have internships exactly for this reason, entry level minimum wage jobs are meant for those just starting out in the workforce, when I was 15 working at mcdonalds for 6.40 an hour the idea was not to stay there for life. and yes there are many lower paying jobs not being filled in america and do you know why? the govt has made going on welfare or disability a much better option.
thats an example of the government fucking up the labour market with their interference.
There is some of that, but when one looks at things like workplace safety, what is the cost to society when a worker is permanently disabled on the job? No one is saying the min wage needs to be a princely sum, but it should be enough for a single person to live in shared accommodation and live reasonably. I think current min wages in Canada are reasonable. Employers still have an opportunity to offer internships etc to facilitate learning on the job. Lots of financial incentives for on the job training, co-op, etc etc. Employers just want free skills. When employers don't invest in skills they do not value them. When you look at German companies, they invest in workers and fight to retain them though hard times. The German govt did a great job assisting companies in building and retaing skilled workforces. Canadian companies only whine.. which is typical of our culture. All these right wing points of view love to denigrate socialism and the left, meanwhile some of the most industrious and productive nations like Japan, Germany, Norway, Sweden etc etc are all socialist and left wing. All have delivered very high standards of living.. meanwhile you can name Zimbabwe as a country with no min wage. Funny how all right wingers seem to be against socialism yet most seem to want to grow the biggest social program in the US, the Department of Defense. If there ever was a mega social program....
Minimum wage laws are a joke because governments allow -- and even encourage -- businesses to skirt around them.
In Ontario, for example, the government runs a "summer jobs" program that compensates employers for hiring summer employees. In effect, the government is acknowledging that summer employees aren't worth the amount employers are expected to pay, so the taxpayers cover the subsidies to businesses to make up the difference.
Furthermore, companies are allowed to hire people as unpaid interns. So the real minimum wage in Canada is $0 per hour.
In Ontario, for example, the government runs a "summer jobs" program that compensates employers for hiring summer employees. In effect, the government is acknowledging that summer employees aren't worth the amount employers are expected to pay, so the taxpayers cover the subsidies to businesses to make up the difference.
Furthermore, companies are allowed to hire people as unpaid interns. So the real minimum wage in Canada is $0 per hour.
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/01/16/why-i-wont-be-taking-unpaid-internships/
Why I won’t be taking unpaid internships
By Yuni Kim | January 16th, 2013 | 10:34 am
U.S. television host and journalist Charlie Rose recently settled a class-action lawsuit after his production company was accused of failing to pay its former college interns. The settlement will set his production company back about $250,000, with each of the 189 interns walking away with $1,100 each for 10 weeks’ worth of work.
“$1,100? Not that bad,” I thought to myself.
Media executive turned law school graduate Steve Cohen disagreed. In the Wall Street Journal he called the lawsuit “dumb” and the settlement “worse.” He says that companies will now be hesitant to take on interns because it invites the possibility of meddling from labour activists rallying against the notion of unpaid work.
While Cohen admits much of what he did as an unpaid intern was unwanted office grunt work, he says he benefited from the experience of becoming part of the company’s daily routine. He was able to made connections and he learned how to conduct himself in the real world.
I understand the value of that. Learning how to dress for work, getting to work on time, planning ahead and multitasking are skills that build us into marketable employees.
However, I still object to the “unpaid” portion of “unpaid internships.”
Here’s why. Cohen is coming from a place of privilege. By privilege, I mean that as someone with a successful career, he is in a position where things like rent, food costs, and student loans are not in his peripheral vision. Not every fresh graduate has the financial stability he has.
He doesn’t seem to realize his position is the exception to the rule of the broke student. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, the average American undergraduate with student debt finishes owing $26,600. According to a report by the Canadian University Research Consortium, the average Canadian undergraduate with debt graduates behind by about $24,500.
By the time I graduate this summer, I will have $25,000 in student debt. This is a choice I made and I don’t resent the sum, but the best I can do as I approach graduation is respond to job openings hoping someone will see me in the sea of applicants and decide my skills are worth paying for.
I have never taken on an unpaid internship because I couldn’t afford to. I have a younger sister at Ryerson University and a younger brother who just finished applying to universities so I’m in no position to ask my parents for help. Instead, I have two part-time jobs in addition to full-time school.
When my friends in the publishing industry or law school say they are going through unpaid internships, I can’t help but feel they’re being cheated. Like me, they have tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, but their desire to land jobs in their fields far outweighs concerns like food and rent. They take on unpaid work in hopes of “making connections” and gaining “exposure.”
Trying to save money by hiring unpaid interns instead of real employees is miserly at best and unethical at worst because it prevents people who aren’t privileged from getting experience.
Greg J., a student I know in Ryerson’s business management program, interned at Investor’s Group. He worked as an unpaid intern assisting a financial consultant with filing and preparing documents. Since he had his family’s full financial support, he was able to pick and choose jobs.
“I was offered a paid internship, but I chose to remain in the unpaid job because money wasn’t really a factor to me,” he says. “I felt it would be disloyal to the company to take the paid one, especially because I had a great experience.”
But he also admits that if he had to go through his undergraduate by paying his own tuition, it would have turned him off working for free. “If I had to work through university, then I’d never take one. I would not. I wouldn’t have been able to take an unpaid internship.”
There is some hope. If employers value you enough, they might pay. Sometimes it just takes asking. My cousin Iris Yoo was an unpaid intern at an interior design company. “I was desperate for experience and so I took it,” she says. “Employers are only looking for experienced people, but there are very few opportunities for people who can’t afford to intern for free, and with no experience you’ll never get a chance to be in a junior position.” She felt she was working just as hard as any of the employees, so she decided asked her boss for a small stipend and it paid off. The stipend didn’t change her life, but that was several hundred dollars less to worry about.
Sadly, I suspect my cousin’s unpaid gig was the exception to the rule.
Overall, the idea of unpaid internships leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Those who are financially unstable will not be able to take on internships for the experience they need in their field.
To expect young people to attend expensive post-secondary institutions on massive student loans and then turn around and tell them their only way of making connections and gaining exposure is by working for free in unpaid internships—something many cannot afford—is ludicrous.
Once upon a time, Cohen’s argument may have held. For today’s students, it’s simply unrealistic.
Yuni Kim (@YuniKimchi on Twitter) is an education student at York University. What do you think of unpaid internships? Let us know in the comment section or on Twitter @maconcampus.
Why I won’t be taking unpaid internships
By Yuni Kim | January 16th, 2013 | 10:34 am
U.S. television host and journalist Charlie Rose recently settled a class-action lawsuit after his production company was accused of failing to pay its former college interns. The settlement will set his production company back about $250,000, with each of the 189 interns walking away with $1,100 each for 10 weeks’ worth of work.
“$1,100? Not that bad,” I thought to myself.
Media executive turned law school graduate Steve Cohen disagreed. In the Wall Street Journal he called the lawsuit “dumb” and the settlement “worse.” He says that companies will now be hesitant to take on interns because it invites the possibility of meddling from labour activists rallying against the notion of unpaid work.
While Cohen admits much of what he did as an unpaid intern was unwanted office grunt work, he says he benefited from the experience of becoming part of the company’s daily routine. He was able to made connections and he learned how to conduct himself in the real world.
I understand the value of that. Learning how to dress for work, getting to work on time, planning ahead and multitasking are skills that build us into marketable employees.
However, I still object to the “unpaid” portion of “unpaid internships.”
Here’s why. Cohen is coming from a place of privilege. By privilege, I mean that as someone with a successful career, he is in a position where things like rent, food costs, and student loans are not in his peripheral vision. Not every fresh graduate has the financial stability he has.
He doesn’t seem to realize his position is the exception to the rule of the broke student. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, the average American undergraduate with student debt finishes owing $26,600. According to a report by the Canadian University Research Consortium, the average Canadian undergraduate with debt graduates behind by about $24,500.
By the time I graduate this summer, I will have $25,000 in student debt. This is a choice I made and I don’t resent the sum, but the best I can do as I approach graduation is respond to job openings hoping someone will see me in the sea of applicants and decide my skills are worth paying for.
I have never taken on an unpaid internship because I couldn’t afford to. I have a younger sister at Ryerson University and a younger brother who just finished applying to universities so I’m in no position to ask my parents for help. Instead, I have two part-time jobs in addition to full-time school.
When my friends in the publishing industry or law school say they are going through unpaid internships, I can’t help but feel they’re being cheated. Like me, they have tens of thousands of dollars in student debt, but their desire to land jobs in their fields far outweighs concerns like food and rent. They take on unpaid work in hopes of “making connections” and gaining “exposure.”
Trying to save money by hiring unpaid interns instead of real employees is miserly at best and unethical at worst because it prevents people who aren’t privileged from getting experience.
Greg J., a student I know in Ryerson’s business management program, interned at Investor’s Group. He worked as an unpaid intern assisting a financial consultant with filing and preparing documents. Since he had his family’s full financial support, he was able to pick and choose jobs.
“I was offered a paid internship, but I chose to remain in the unpaid job because money wasn’t really a factor to me,” he says. “I felt it would be disloyal to the company to take the paid one, especially because I had a great experience.”
But he also admits that if he had to go through his undergraduate by paying his own tuition, it would have turned him off working for free. “If I had to work through university, then I’d never take one. I would not. I wouldn’t have been able to take an unpaid internship.”
There is some hope. If employers value you enough, they might pay. Sometimes it just takes asking. My cousin Iris Yoo was an unpaid intern at an interior design company. “I was desperate for experience and so I took it,” she says. “Employers are only looking for experienced people, but there are very few opportunities for people who can’t afford to intern for free, and with no experience you’ll never get a chance to be in a junior position.” She felt she was working just as hard as any of the employees, so she decided asked her boss for a small stipend and it paid off. The stipend didn’t change her life, but that was several hundred dollars less to worry about.
Sadly, I suspect my cousin’s unpaid gig was the exception to the rule.
Overall, the idea of unpaid internships leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Those who are financially unstable will not be able to take on internships for the experience they need in their field.
To expect young people to attend expensive post-secondary institutions on massive student loans and then turn around and tell them their only way of making connections and gaining exposure is by working for free in unpaid internships—something many cannot afford—is ludicrous.
Once upon a time, Cohen’s argument may have held. For today’s students, it’s simply unrealistic.
Yuni Kim (@YuniKimchi on Twitter) is an education student at York University. What do you think of unpaid internships? Let us know in the comment section or on Twitter @maconcampus.
The market dictates what is acceptable and what is not. End of story.
As far as unpaid internships go, many employers use them to filter in good prospects, and will go on to hire these people.
As far as unpaid internships go, many employers use them to filter in good prospects, and will go on to hire these people.
