If the minimum wage was $0, which has the most votes, employers could pay people $0.01 an hour.
That's a whole $0.40 a week (before taxes) for someone who works the average 40 hours a week.
A bottle of Water costs about $.50-1.50.
As it is right now, most people can't even survive above the poverty line with a $7.25/h job.
If they payed $0.01 an hour, then nobody would take that job.
People get desperate, and eventually hungry. When things get bad enough and there is no other choice, they most certainly will work, and they work for a pittance. This is evidenced by every third world sweat shop in existence.
Here's a list of minimum and average wages around the world: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
Looks like in the Central African Republic they are paying .10 cents an hour, average work week is 52 hours.
Seems clear to me that people take whatever jobs they can get in order to survive.
Then neither you nor your kids have been hungry enough. People will take a job if they have lost enough hope that better times are not coming. Businesses will prey upon these people because they can. Contrary to popular belief, businesses only do the right thing when that contributes to what they are paying their board members. Big businesses really do not care about their employees.
It's almost impossible to get that poor in the US, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, section 8, etc. Now I'm not saying you're going to eat high on the hog, nor am I saying that everyone takes advantage of the system, but if you're going to be poor be poor in the US.
Now say we do set the min. wage to $15, what about the people who already make $15 an hour, they will rightly say, we are worth more than min. wage, so their wages will go up, and so on and so on, and so the poor will be back in the same boat.
Might it not be better to upgrade their skills. Instead of leading protests, which does give you some air time, why not help people upgrade with skills, it's doesn't take that much, some childcare at a community center while the parents take classes online or take classes in a trade? So once they get a degree or finish a trade they can find better paying jobs. Of course that take hard work, and you don't get air time, so instead they want the "easy way" and protest.
You are right about the social services part of this equation in the US at this time. Just remember though, that the same people who don't want a minimum wage also don't want any social services, or at least they don't want to pay taxes to support those services. They want to keep all of their wages for themselves, they want to eliminate any "handouts" to everyone and they just can't seem to understand why anyone who has a brain can't get a $60,000 a year job with full paid health insurance.
Well, as one who doesn't want a minimum wage, and I don't support "handouts" I support "hand ups". That is we help people to get back on their feet, so they no longer need hand outs.
I prefer workfare to welfare, trust me there is PLENTY of work that needs to be done. When I lived in Seattle, there were and still are many parks, playgrounds, road that need to have trash picked up and grass mowed, equipment repaired. Why not use those people on welfare to do that work, and give them say two hours a day to study for a degree or learn a trade? That way they aren't getting a handout, they are working for what they get, plus we give them a chance to improve themselves so they can get a 60K a year job or better. It's a win, win, we get clean parks, roads, playgrounds, etc, with very little additional cost, plus the person gets a paycheck and a chance to better themselves. Yes I know we'd have to supply childcare, but we already have a group of people who need jobs and with a little training could do it. Again a win, win. Nobody would be forced to work, but if don't want to work, don't expect a handout. Now, if a person truly cannot work they shouldn't be on welfare they should be on disability.
So you are proposing to displace the people who have good paid jobs with benefits, who aren't on welfare, don't take foodstamps, who already do that work to provide a poorly paid job to people who are getting what some call a hand out.
I don't see where that leads to a better job for them or even a better life. It certainly doesn't help the people who currently have those jobs. The people who are on welfare would still be on welfare. They would not be receiving any real training or education to better their situation and they are still on welfare, just welfare with a different definition.
The causes of poverty are complicated and vary tremendously, but jobs and the money that jobs provide are only one very small facet of the problem. If we want people to move off welfare, we have to make changes at the societal level and not just with those experiencing poverty. In a state that cannot govern itself anymore, I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
Please do a google search on root causes of poverty in America and read the articles written on the subject. It's rather eye opening how complicated poverty can be. Because the causes of poverty are complicated, the solutions to that poverty will be complicated.
Displace who? Those are jobs for the most part that aren't getting done, again in when I lived in Seattle, parks were being closed because they couldn't afford to mow the grass and pickup trash. Since we are already "paying" them, that is we are giving them money, should we at least get something back?
How would it lead to a better job or life? Didn't you read the part we we'd also them two hours a day to better themselves? "..give them say two hours a day to study for a degree or learn a trade? " So they have a chance to better themselves, and it would be part of their work day. So we would expect them to better themselves and leave the program to make room for someone else.
You see just giving somebody something doesn't solve the problem, it in fact makes it worst. If I have you a new car every year, would you ever buy one? Of course not, why would you? You get one for free. Even if you had to fill out some paperwork would you buy one? No.That's basically the system we currently have, fill out the paperwork and we give you stuff, and for many people that enough, they have enough to survive and that's what they accept. Especially if what they get for free is reduced when they do start working.
"Because the causes of poverty are complicated, the solutions to that poverty will be complicated."
Yes there are many causes of poverty, drugs, alcohol, etc. But at some point you have to stop just tossing money at a problem. We have spent over a 750 billion dollars trying to end poverty, and in real numbers there are more poor today then when the programs started, and percentage is about the same, so what we are currently doing isn't working.
So rather then having a huge complicated system that tries and has failed to solve all the problems, Why not take a focused approach? Try something and in 4 years if we don't see positive results end the program, and require a vote every 4 years so that when the programs starts to fail, that is it no longer is showing positive results, the program ends.
You see government has a disincentive to solve any problem, because if they solve it, they lose their job. It would be like me say, as soon as you finish this job you're fired, but as long as you're working on it I'll pay you. How long would it take for you to finish?
(edited for spelling)
I think it's important that low income workers learn the value of their own labor, so that businesses actually have to compete for workers based on wage. Minimum wage is essentially a covert tax on unskilled labor, which results in outsourcing of menial manufacturing jobs, call centers, etc. I think removing minimum wage would have to come with a restructuring of welfare. For example, give everyone an allowance of say $5k, an income tax exemption up to the poverty line, and then a 40% or so marginal income tax beyond that. The idea is that if you're at or below the poverty line, you get 5k, if you earn up to 12.5k more than the poverty line you get less, and if you earn more than 12.5k over the poverty line you pay in. I think you'd have to increase some other taxes, or cut some other spending to pay for all of this, but it should allow for the removal of minimum wage without making things worse.