Comment by Domenic_S | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Domenic_S | Hacker News Reader

I had an idea a while back that a job doesn't provide wages per-se, but a level of lifestyle.

E.g. as a software developer in Silicon Valley, my salary is somewhat large compared to the rest of the world, but my lifestyle is fairly unremarkable for a working professional (2 used cars, a house that needs updates, weekends off, vacation time, etc).

I could move somewhere with a lower cost of living, and my compensation would decrease, and if I did the same job I would probably live approximately the same lifestyle (perhaps with marginal improvements to the house considering SV's real estate situation).

If I moved up the career ladder my lifestyle would improve a bit; if I moved down my lifestyle would get a bit worse.

Using this rubric of job type = lifestyle, what kind of lifestyle is a minimum-wage job meant to support? There will always be a bottom-rung lifestyle, and those that support themselves on minimum-wage jobs will always occupy the next rung up from the bottom. The ladder itself may move up or down, but compared to fellow workers in other jobs, they will always feel the delta. And that's what this is really about, the unhappiness caused by seeing that delta.

We were never meant to support entire families on minimum wage jobs.

Some of us are interested in providing every human being with dignity and comfort, if at all possible.

Yes. Parent is asking what (exactly) is required to provide "dignity and comfort" for the bottom-most rung on the "lifestyle ladder."

For example, if our modern standard of living is compared to medieval times... then many minimum wage workers live in relative dignity and comfort. But I'm guessing you're not using that as the basis for comparison. So please elaborate. :)

[I would try to define a base level for "dignity and comfort", but frankly, I can't even fathom living on minimum wage -- esp. here in Silicon Valley. But I would appreciate perspective from someone with a bit more grounding.]

Others of us are more interested in providing opportunity, rather than inherent comfort, in the form of achievement.

> Some of us are interested in providing every human being with dignity and comfort, if at all possible.

Providing? Or Enabling?

How about you empower every human being to achieve dignity and comfort?

Education and high-skilled job training.

The solution isn't to just "provide", it's to empower. Providing is a short term solution... one that must be re-visited every few years. Empowering people to build themselves a future lasts forever.

Providing dignity is enabling. And we could provide it long-term to everyone if we wanted.

> Providing dignity is enabling. And we could provide it long-term to everyone if we wanted.

We have 77 years of history proving raising minimum wage is absurdly ineffective at enabling individuals to climb out of minimum wage jobs.

Yes, one can indefinitely raise minimum wage every few years (as we have been since 1938), but that doesn't provide long term growth for the individuals trying to live on it.

Providing better and cheaper/easier access to higher education and high-skilled job training has proven time and time again to be the only permanent solution which lifts individuals out of minimum wage jobs.

People should have a place to call home and not starve whether they have a good job, a minimum wage job, or no job at all.

Education and training are a great way to help people move up, but we need a ground floor too, rather than a basement full of jagged rebar.

>How about you empower every human being to achieve dignity and comfort? Education and high-skilled job training.

Not until we have worker bots to do all of the menial tasks that are essential for civil living.

Education and high-skilled job training.

That's not free, though. Even if you subsidize all the tuitition, there are study materials, the opportunity cost of attending classes, and possibly physical costs in getting to/from them and so on. Small costs like this add up to significant sums for people who earn small amounts.

Get a grip.

Some of us believe that providing everyone with comfort leads to a weak and decadent society, and is therefore self-defeating.

Do you believe that? If so, why?

Then let's take that $15/hour and send it to Haiti or Nepal, or boycott Dell and Apple until their factory workers don't have to live in cells attached to manufacturing plants.

I realize I'm being a little snarky, but seriously, give the gift of dignity and comfort for basically pocket change here: https://watsi.org

With two minimum wage bread winners, there are places to live a somewhat normal lifestyle in the United States.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12557757/1/5-housing-markets-...

> We were never meant to support entire families on minimum wage jobs.

False. Americans used to raise large families on minimum wage.

> False. Americans used to raise large families on minimum wage.

That's false. When minimum wage was introduced in 1938, it was for 25 cents per hour ($4.16 per hour adjusted to 2015), and was intended for low-skilled temporary jobs (they also had 44 hour work-weeks). Minimum wage only applied to 1/5th of the entire workforce in 1938. What does it apply to today?

Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be targeted at young unskilled/uneducated individuals, often times not supporting themselves nor a family (living at home while attending university or high school).

The problem is we now have a massive portion of the population attempting to live off minimum wage jobs instead of graduating into higher paid - higher skilled jobs.

We need to fix that. Raising minimum wage every few years when it perpetually becomes "not enough to feed a family on" is a near-sighted solution. How about we put money back into schools and high-skilled job training programs? That's the long-term solution.

Spot on. I'd add that many minimum-wage jobs are good for retirees who often(?) don't need the money to eat and will drop their checks right back into the economy on hobbies and other entertainment.

> Minimum wage jobs are supposed to be targeted at young unskilled/uneducated individuals...

Young, unskilled & uneducated individuals are disproportionately represented in minimum wage jobs because (by definition) they lack qualifications for other jobs. That doesn't mean that these jobs are targeted at that group.

> The problem is we now have a massive portion of the population attempting to live off minimum wage jobs...

There are only approximately 3.3 million hourly workers earning minimum wage in the US -- which works out to about 2% of the workforce. How much smaller should it be as a percentage of the workforce?

> ...instead of graduating into higher paid - higher skilled jobs.

Working sufficiently hard at a minimum wage job is not a path towards advancement. A minimum wage job is not enough to pay for college [2], and combined with aggressive part-timing isn't enough to live on [3]. How ought these low-skilled workers with two jobs and inadequate income to afford college go about "graduating into higher paid...jobs"?

> Raising minimum wage every few years when it perpetually becomes "not enough to feed a family on" is a near-sighted solution.

I agree. We should index it to inflation with automatic corrections applied every decade or so. Then we won't have to keep arguing about it.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-mi... [2] http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/11/a_min... [3] http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonald...

Thanks Dwight Schrute, that's quite an assertion without anything to back it up.

Historically, and worldwide, the inception of a minimum wage was enough "for a man, his wife and two children to live in frugal comfort" (Australia). In the US, the biggest win wasn't the wage at all, but the abolition of child labor in textile plants. In this snippet from [0]:

In the meantime, various industries developed more complete codes. The Cotton Textile Code was the first of these and one of the most important. It provided for a 40-hour workweek, set a minimum weekly wage of $13 in the North and $12 in the South, and abolished child labor. [Roosevelt] said this code made him "happier than any other one thing...since I have come to Washington, for the code abolished child labor in the textile industry." He added: "After years of fruitless effort and discussion, this ancient atrocity went out in a day."

Minimum wages for women were also a part of this.

[0]: http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com