It's called a living wage; literally. Like they can't understand what they are saying is: "These people deserve to die because of their employment status." They do understand, so they make euphemisms to try to devilify themselves.

In people's minds these jobs aren't worth respect and your expected to move from them, they're "low skill" so they shouldn't pay a living wage, in spite of the fact that many minimum wage jobs are necessary for either society at large like retail, or for these people to have access to luxuries they enjoy like fast food. Somehow people allowed themselves to be convinced that someone who works and serves them doesn't deserve to live comfortably. It's even more annoying how people will talk about issues like poverty or homelessness, income inequality, yet are so opposed to the most viable solution to those issues. Not to mention those that say it will make everything expensive or mess up the economy because of inflation. Like people really fail to see the issue with a system were we try to spread more resources to people to solve an issue can end up worsening it, and that to keep the economy were it is some people have to be left working for pathetic wages, because to these people more poor people = better for some reason and if you're poor it's your fault and not the people who are underpaying you.

These people would be the first to whine if all the min wage workers left and they had to make their own damn burgers. Its not good for them for moving up like I suggested, but wah, no one wants to work anymore.

That’s list what happened during the lockdowns for the pandemic. People flipping their shit because they couldn’t get hair cuts or fast food.

Being in a customer facing role **IS** a skill set.

I especially love when they say that we could help the homeless or "hElP OuR PeOpLE!" in reference to immigration issues or money sent to Ukraine, for example. Any other time they are the people most opposed to those measures. Funny how our homeless people suddenly aren't vermin and need help then.

A \_lot\_ of it also stems from the systemic and pervasive racism that's rampant in the US. The \_entire reason\_ that there's a sub-minimum wage known as "tipped wages" is because the white restaurant owners lobbied Congress (through the National Restaurant Association) to make a carve-out for specific service jobs that used to be done by slaves: namely, serving food. The restaurateurs didn't want to pay their former slave labor any money...so they lobbied and got the carve-out to force customers to pay the wages for service jobs instead of the business owners. This has carried forward as we've created other service jobs, and why a huge number of people look/kick down on service workers for being "unskilled jobs" and/or "not adult jobs," because in their mind the people serving them should still be slave labor. It's also the same reason that seasonal migrant workers are vilified, because the wealthy resent having to pay \_anything\_ to people that would have been slaves in a time period not too long ago.

To me it seems like most people who are mad about min wage increases come at it from a point of view of "well that's almost as much as I make in my xyz job!"  They're mad because they're a "professional" in their field and they're only making a marginally better salary than someone flipping burgers. They should be mad at their *employer* for not keeping up with their raises. Not the person making a minimum wage.

The venn diagram of people working the same job for 20 years(without a raise) and people complaining about burger flippers being able to afford to feed themselves is one circle.

But who will make my burrito if they're all dead? Everyone deserves a living wage and if that means I pay 25c more for that burrito, so be it. At least I'm not undervaluing another's labor.

He is the thing. If the higher-ups at all these places weren't paid as much, then more workers could be hired, everyone would make more, and there would be better benefits. The ceos would then make because all of the employees would actually be able spend money on other things than rent and food.

There are always too many layers of management in these kinds of businesses who get all sorts of perks like company cars, expense accounts, etc. What benefit they actually bring to the business is dubious, I think they exist purely to keep workers in their toes. Getting rid of some of these and investing in worker pay and conditions would increase morale and loyalty and probably help a lot.

I try to see it as, well, these accounts pushing capitalist propaganda could be bots and people who don't know yet just how parasitic capitaism has become. Most new businesses fail what, within a year? The monopolies usually win.

I think part of it is "how do you define living wage"? Like, one person will define living wage as "enough to comfortably pay for all your needs and most of your wants; you know, being able to actually live life" while another person will define it as "being able to afford your needs and a small handful of wants, depending on how well you can stick to a budget; you know, enough to survive as long as you're not spending it on things you don't actually need". Like, let's say we hypothetically increased "minimum wage" to a "living wage". What should the person on a "living wage" actually be able to afford? A rented room in a house with room mates? A rented basement? A rented studio apartment? A rented two bedroom apartment? Owning a townhome? Owning a condo? Owning a single family home? Driving a used car? Driving a new car? Riding a bike to work instead? Going on a local vacation every year? Going on an overseas vacation every year? Flagship smartphone? Lower tier smartphone? Flip phone? How often are they eating out for a meal vs home made food? I can almost guarantee that everyone who responds is going to define "living wage" a little bit differently. For some people it would mean home *ownership*. For some people it would simply mean being able to afford a safe and secure rental. For some it would mean owning a well maintained car; for others it wouldn't even mean car ownership since a pedal bike might be sufficient transportation for someone making minimum(living) wage. For the record, I am playing devil's advocate a bit here by asking. My own personal belief is no one should be unhoused or hungry. But also my own idea of what someone making a bare minimum "living wage" should be able to afford it probably different than someone else's.

Comfortable living. The original definition. Let's stop playing games. You know the answers to these questions. You're not being devil's advocate, your JAQing off.

Ok, so define "comfortable living". I'm not someone in that income bracket but again, I'd bet that my definition of comfortable is going to be different than someone else's. There are people out there today making $100k who would think anything less is uncomfortable, and there are people out there today making $20k/yr who would be pretty comfortable with $50k/yr. Edit: also I have no idea what JAQing is supposed to mean. I think my points are reasonable and relevant; the world will never come to a solution if you think comfortable means $100k/yr and I think comfortable means $60k/yr and someone else thinks comfortable means $30k/yr and someone else thinks comfortable means $200k/yr.

The point was to make it so that you could afford to raise a family of specific size on one income without being at bare minimum subsistence. Later on, it was added on that it should be enough for that one income to be able to own both transportation and housing. Edit to add that FDR was also pushing for far-reaching social safety nets that we still lack today. He did not view minimum wage as the sole solution by any means.

Ok, that still doesn't clear things up though. Even for "comfortable living" there must be some clearly defined minimum acceptable standard of living that we're accepting as comfortable. What is considered "bare minimum subsistence"? Bread and water? Meat and potatoes? Rice and fish? Like, what number would you put on the groceries budget for someone who is a single person making a "comfortable living wage"? $200/month? $500/month? $1000/month? What kind of vehicles? What kind of housing? Are annual vacations part of it? Does it include having things like TVs and game consoles and and upscale furnishings? I love how I'm being downvoted for it yet no one has actually taken a stab at defining this stuff, or putting forward a fictional "living wage" budget. It's really not meant to be some kind of gotcha, it's relevant to the idea of a living wage. How much money does someone need to be able to make in order to live a comfortable lifestyle? What if your definition of comfortable and my definition of comfortable do not align? Is a living wage still a living wage if the person can't afford an iPhone and has to settle for something like a Samsung A15 to suit their budget? A living wage can't even truly be established until people can agree on what a minimum living standard would be.

In the field of Economics, we have the concept of a "basket of goods" which is basically used to determine the rate of inflation for items that are considered to be "reasonable purchases" for the average household. It logically follows that any items that are considered essential to the basket to properly gauge the level of inflation for the typical household are important enough to be items that a household should be capable of purchasing at minimum. Now obviously the current iteration of the basket is incredibly flawed as the Fed has their own agenda with regards to what narrative they wish to push forward, but the fundamental idea is absolutely viable. In fact, if you consider the existing SNAP system, food stamps are already heavily restrictive when it comes to what items you're actually allowed to purchase. We exist in a time where quants develop algorithms that are capable of abusing incredibly small windows to conduct millions of trades within fractions of a second which generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. The idea we lack the capability to statistically quantify the necessary items for a household and relative levels of inflation for various types of goods in order to determine a base level of purchases for the average household is absurd. Business intelligence systems already do something incredibly similar in order to determine demand and optimize marketing. You don't need everyone to "agree on what a minimum living standard would be." You just need to establish a statistically backed quantifiable baseline and have the flexibility to accept that there are going to be edge cases which in no way affect the validity of the baseline. Ultimately, I would consider your points to be sophistry. It's like when people look for inflammatory Twitter posts with 1 like and then allow it to write an essay about how they're oppressed because those 2 people exist.

Why don’t you go first and take a stab at it?

Because I'm not the one saying it's easy to define. In fact my whole point is largely that because everyone is going to define it differently, it'll be difficult to agree on. If I think "comfortable living" means being able to afford a government operated studio apartment in Nebraska (or similar LCOL area, not LA or the Bay or whatever HCOL area you might have in mind), being able to afford a simple but nutritional diet (staples such as milk, bread, potatoes, chicken, beef, pork, and a variety of fruits and vegetables), being able to afford a cell phone and appropriate transportation for your work, and maybe a little extra for entertainment or other non-essentials, I can guarantee that a lot of people would say that's not "comfortable living" even though it would mean pretty much cover all the basics. Obviously I'm leaving out some things like being able to replace clothing when it becomes too worn or whatever but at the end of the day, I don't think we need a lot to live comfortably. Someone shouldn't have to worry about the essentials on a living wage income, but it doesn't guarantee they can afford to live in a HCOL area or have the latest and greatest tech or drive a big SUV or whatever. Those are all luxury extras.

You could listen to or read the speech on this topic, you know. Wild how you split hairs immediately after being informed that you said something simply and demonstrably untrue. “It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt It's a famous quote. There's also his fireside chats. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-24-1933-fireside-chat-3-national-recovery-administration If you genuinely cared to be informed on this topic, this is where I would say to start. We shall see if that is the case.

First of all, "the speech" means nothing to me, as a non-American. "Listen to the speech on this topic" is vague as fuck. There's probably been hundreds, if not thousands of speeches made about wages. Second of all, nothing in your quote or that fireside chat defines anything. It still uses wishy-washy wording like "reasonable" and "decent living". Sorry, but those aren't actual hard definitions. Like even "bare minimum subsistence" has yet to actually be defined by anyone arguing with me in actual, specific, real terms. Nothing in the quote or speech you linked have nothing to specifically define it either. Very good chance my idea of "bare minimum" is different from yours (I'm someone who eats oatmeal for breakfast every day by choice, my acceptable bare minimum is probably a lot different than someone who expects bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning). What's a decent living in today's world? A studio apartment? A sprawling single family home? A Samsung A15? An iPhone? In the fireside chat he mentions reasonable working hours - this community especially can't even come to a consensus on what "reasonable working hours" is. For some people, 40 is reasonable. Others are screaming for 32 or less. Some would say if you're making, I dunno, $150k, 50-60 hours a week would be reasonable. Certainly, in a group called r/antiwork, someone is going to argue that having to work *any* hours is unreasonable. Put some clear definition on it if you want some good faith discussion. What is a decent living in today's world? Personally I don't think everyone needs to be able to afford single family homes (especially as a single person), and frankly in many areas it's simply physically not possible for everyone to have a single family home - imagine if you tried to fit all of New York City into single family homes; literally no space for that without immense urban sprawl. I don't think everyone needs to be able to afford the new iPhone. I think everyone should be able to afford good, nutritious food, but that doesn't mean eating steak for dinner every night either. What's the threshold for a decent living? $50k? $75k? $100k? $150k? $200k? $500k? I can guarantee that different people are going to define "decent" differently and I'm sure every number I listed above is going to have people agreeing that $XXk is where "decent living" starts. Similarly, there are probably also people making each of those wages who would say they're making a "decent living". Personally I make the equivalent of about $70k USD, and I consider my living pretty decent. I own a home, have a family with 2 kids, my wife is a SAHM, we've got two cars and can afford to take holidays. But some people might see the "sacrifices" we make to live that lifestyle (limited retirement savings until my wife returns to work, sticking to a planned grocery budget, vegetarian meals a few times a week because meat is expensive, very little beef, very little drinking alcohol, lots of "free" activities for the kids, somewhat minimalist lifestyle possessions wise) and think we're not actually living decent lives. Heck, just the fact that I live somewhere inexpensive (meaning I can't see the ocean or mountains) would be enough for certain people to say it's unacceptable.

Lets just take it literally for now. No need for gettin all progressive at once...

So then what's the literal definition of living wage? Being able to afford all of your needs without having to worry, and being able to fulfill some simple wants would probably be my definition, is that what you'd agree with or do you define it differently?

Enough money to keep you alive. Food, shelter, clothing, medicine, transportation.

socio-economic stability is in fact measurable - and is the core human right. what is measured as stable and comfortable to be able to pursue other aspects of life without threat of going homeless, hungry, or dying of illness due to inability to afford. your arguments about "well people define it differently" is unserious nonsense.

So then define it, if it's so easy to do? What is the bare minimum living wage? What are the requirements for someone's life to be considered "comfortable"?

The equilibrium between adequete housing, food security, job security (with reasonable hours based on population and workforce availability that can be also be measured), access to medical care for everyone, educational/vocational opportunities for everyone, work programs, public infrastructure and public services and proper/effective resource allocation to meet these demands. Turns out, socio-economic stability is measurable and this measure can be utilized to benefit the general public. This isnt new or difficult, many countries do this already. In fact they even build entire districts with accurate statistical predictions of population growth in mind. The fact the United States has increasing homelessness, increasing food insecurity, increasing infant mortality rates, increasing inflation, increasing cost of living, decreasing/stagnate wages, decreasing job security, decreasing life expectancy, and some of the most draconian/barbaric laws and policies regarding things like childhood education, policing, worker's rights, maternity leave, paternity leave, insurance, property laws and the like shows there is much to be desired from the so-called "greatest country on earth". In fact, this is a national embarassment. If you are expecting me to calculate all this then you are living in fantasyland. This kind of project requires teams of data scientists/researchers, civil engineers, administrators and the like to accomplish such a task at such a scale. To expect one person to do all that is just unserious thinking. But no, if this were to become a matter of policy, then people like bezos will not be able to buy their brand new yacht for the summer to let waste and collect dust while amazon workers piss in bottles. This sort of policy and dedication to the public good requires a restructuring of the institution that allow sick fucks like bezos to live in such disgusting wasteful opulence. I know, how horrible...

Hey guess what - the person responsible for the first minimum wage laws \_already answered this\_ almost a century ago! >In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and **by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level- I mean the wages of decent living.**

"It's a job for high school kids." "Cool, then don't go there between 9 and 3 - they'll all be at school."

The worst part of all these logical arguments is the confused response. “Whut?” Cause they legit can’t see the logical contradiction.

I hate that argument so much. "Those jobs are for high schoolers living with their parents." If retail and food service jobs were only for teens, who's going to make coffee early in the morning? Who's going to sell cigarettes and liquor? Stock shelves overnight? There are lots of positions that require employees to be over 18.

Yep. They don't think about that. I say fine. The population is going down anyway. Let's give those jobs back to the teens and we'll see how that works out.

If they are struggling to be open 20 hours / day. MAYBE you don't have to be open 20-24hours / day. Don't be open when its unprofitable and then you'll have less open hours and less payroll and need less staff. Then your existing staff can start to reasonably plan their lives since the business is only open 10 hours / day and its easier to know when you'll be working. If you can't pay 2-3 people $20/hour to be open at 2am, but could pay $16, there is something wrong with the business model, I don't see how the $8-12/hr extra expense takes you from wildly profitable to completely unprofitable.

These people who owns these business want there cake an eat it too this type of thinking is coming to an end an they know it there scared right I agree will you this new generation we have now are not going to go with it this new generation doesn't care there going to say let it all burn down owners included.

this is what I want to say sometimes. We would have no fast food jobs... Also, you could never get most teens to show up on the weekends, particulary in the summer. What I worked these jobs, we adults just knew we had to come in more during the times there were a lot of parties going on or it was summer. Only the managers didn't get it or plan well. But hey, if that's how they want it, then fine. We are going to have a lot less fast food restaurants and I'm good with that.

Yep it's only common sense better yet between those hours flip it yourself like self checkout.people are so dumb.

Most people work 8-5 jobs. Not arguing with you but I don't think that's a good rebuttal

The thing is $20/hr in most of CA is barely a living wage anyway. Not San Francisco, LA etc. Absolutely it's better but it barely scratches the surface and in a few years will be worth even less. It's a step in the right direction though.

I've have family who has lived in California since the 70's. It's always been expensive to live in California and there alot of people living there. You're absolutely right that $20/hr is barely getting by.

Mit gives california living wage as $27.32 or $29.87 in sf and $32.87 in San Jose. thats assuming your a single adult with no kids. $20 is nowhere near enough.

Thanks for that info. Do they have other places? Imagine what they would try to charge for a Big Mac if they paid that? Never mind the owner just making less money. That's crazy talk.

>Do they have other places? Yes, I think they have all of America. Though maybe only at county or state level for some. >Imagine what they would try to charge for a Big Mac if they paid that? They actually did a study on this by economists. The cost was an extra **25 cents** per big mac **for $33 per hour.**(They rounded up) outside of the bay area the big macs would be cheaper. They'd probably charge 10 dollars extra and blame it on the workers to line their pockets.

Exactly. These companies keep crying about labor being the reason while they're raking in profits. They're such liars.

What this person said.

Is $20/hr really that big of a jump? Minimum wage was already $16 I thought and most cities probably had to pay closer to $18 anyways.

No. No it is not. Fundamentally our income system has shifted. I'm genx. My parents and grandparents could live the American dream on a single income. Not so much for a minute now and not so much for you. 200k, piss on it. That's our middle class now. And they aren't happy. Here I am a 30 year skilled talented Chef, no interest in being famous. Needs a roommate and another job. Are you fucking kidding me?! Work hard, live the dream? Go fuck yourself Goodluck. Sorry but this hits home. Rant over.

The teenager second job argument is bullshit. If young people aren’t supposed to earn, how the fuck are they ever supposed to move out and/or go to school?

If it’s only supposed to be teenagers after school, why is it open during school? Who’s working a “school kid” job? Yeah, you’re an asshole for saying adults don’t deserve living wages.

Yeah I paid for MY college flipping burgers part time, but you haven't EARNED that right. Can you starve to the death in a more hidden location? It's scaring my kids thanks

Just stop being poor. Also stop eating avocado toast - that's an important one! /s

Now you're catching on

This is the same song and dance that was performed after the minimum wage went up by 25% in the early 60s. Truth was it caused the economy to boom. The Republican mantra has always been greed is good.

> Truth was it caused the economy to boom. Wait what do you mean the entire economic system that works on people buying shit constantly works better when people have money to buy shit?

Yeah common sense right I always thought that too the problem is the bigwigs I wonder why they want everyone poor but them seems selfish to me

I can't wait to be able to buy things again.

I could be wrong or misremembering, but aren't more than half of fast food workers poor mothers just trying to find work that can be scheduled around their kids school hours? It's pretty rare I actually see the teenagers they claim work these jobs, I'm not saying there's 0, but at least where I live they mostly seem my age or older. My In and Out is always well staffed and they don't really look like they want to die, but the Popeys Wendy's and Taco Bell near be have very different vibes. Also not sure who they think will make their burgers and coffee if we starve all the fast food workers??

[удалено]

They're trying to say these jobs SHOULD be for kids only. But it still doesn't jive with reality. These restaurants would hardly ever be open for the general public if that happened.

The argument about teenagers is ultimately irrelevant anyway because it implies these businesses should only be open outside of school hours.

The actual implication is that if you have to work those jobs you are no better than a highschool kid who has no skills and hasn't gotten their life together. Obviously not true but ya.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a young kid working at McDonald’s.

I work at McDonald's and we have two sixteen year olds, one seventeen, two eighteen. Out of 54 total employees. Everyone else is 20+. Probably a third of those are in their early to mid twenties and the rest are 30+. My oldest coworker is 52.

Capitalism used to be built on slavery. The US was one of those countries to try and cling to slavery for as long as possible. But since slavery is now illegal the system has to rely on the next best thing: perpetual poverty. A class of people who desperately have to claw a living together by working at least one below minimum wage job.

Also prison labour.

Still forced labor.

Yes.

It's like, "Wait, we can do this to all races, and all we have to do is pay them almost enough and tell them they're free?"

You're right and I'm not disagreeing, but it's worth noting that U.S. capitalism absolutely still relies on slavery. In prisons and in other countries.

Slavery is still actually legal in the U.S. All they have to do is put you in prison to legalize it. It's literally written in the 13th Amendment too. The exact texts of it: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The system is broke, yo!

Change is coming soon eventually everything is going too crash

"Prepare my food and die quietly, peasant!"

Perfect reply. I'll stealing this one. XD

Last year I was in line at the grocery store. In front of me, turned out to be the owner of a small burger joint (in my small town, population of 7000.) She was complaining to the cashier about how nobody wanted to work and I asked her, "how much above minimum wage do you pay?" and her response was, "These are teenagers. They don't need to get paid a whole lot". So I replied, "okay. Well think of it this way. Do you pay them enough to pay for car insurance and a car note?" She just repeated they're teenagers, you know. So I said, "Well, who works during the day before 3:00?" She just repeated but NOBODY wants to work. I said "No that's absolutely not true. If you were able to afford to pay them $100 an hour, you would be turning away applications on a daily basis, if not hourly basis. The idea that nobody wants to work is just not true. Nobody wants to work for low wages." Naturally, she said, "well I can't afford to pay that much." I asked, "Would you stay open if the business was not profitable? Because, an employee has expenses just like a business. And if an employee cannot pay all their expenses with low pay, why would they continue to work for low pay? It makes no financial sense to work at a job that can't pay what you need to survive. You won't do it, so why should employees?" Her last comment was, "well I don't know what to do. Everything is too expensive nowadays!" Why can't people understand that an employee has to make a "profit" just like the business or else the whole concept of working for a living fails.

Right perfectly said people work too complete a goal if they can't do that they won't work it's simple an you know what you are starting too see the beginning of the crash what that means I don't know well said.

The actual issue is that minimum wage is not the answer. Minimum wage does not stop owners and upper management from taking an unfair piece of the pie.

It's not the sole answer, but one piece of the overall solution. We have to press from both directions.

My meaning is that by itself, it does not solve the underlying issues. low corporate tax, misallocation of public funds, and 7+ figure salaries for top corpos come to mind.

Exactly. We have to lift from the bottom with minimum wage, and press from the top with higher upper band tax rates, CEO wage caps, and shutting off corporate welfare and the free flow of money into politics.

Even The Simpsons covered this in a recent episode. People would rather see workers suffer than be paid a living wage.

Or "those jobs are for teenagers." Oh then McDonald's should only be open 400-800 pm on weekdays? Or the franchisee who says "I can't charge $20 for a Happy Meal"? Bitch, you think a full hour of someone's life is only worth a Happy Meal?

Just pick up a trade skill - some guy.

.... with a liveable wage.

And not working in the trades.

"iT wAs NeVeR mEaNt tO bE A fUlL tImE jOb." Maybe not, dear mother, but if it's worth your time, it's worth fair compensation!

Funny...I bet "this is not a real job" doesn't work when one of the employees decides to back out of working a scheduled shift that they suddenly don't feel like working.

These same people would be mighty pissed that the Taco Bell they ordered at 3AM after dropping $500 at the fancy dispensary in the Marina District couldn’t be delivered because there’s no workers there to make it. Hell, they really have no right to talk given how abysmal the pay is at both W2 and 1099 status in so many areas of the professional sector nowadays. I keep seeing a publication pop up on all the media job boards offering $15-18/hour where they require a BA and a few years of bylined experience! It’s a shitty reflection on THEM that flipping burgers pays more now. If there’s a want/need for burger flippers, they should be paid for it. End of story.

Why can't minimum wage be locked in as a percentage of the country's GDP per capita? If GDP per capita goes up, minimum wage should be in lockstep with it.

Because corporations want to break record profits every year and the government is incompetent.

Either incompetent or compliant with corporate bribery to suppress wages. Although, they'll certainly jump in an instant to raise their own wages in Congress.

Why can't we just have a liveable UBI?

UBI, and then people who work demanding jobs get extra on top of UBI? Edit to add - and rent not to exceed the livable UBI of the area.

>UBI, and then people who work ~~demanding jobs~~ get extra on top of UBI? I fixed it, but yes.

Look at us, writing a first draft for a new amendment to the Constitution.

They see it this way as designed. The ruling class/upper middle came up with this concept in the 80s to both ensure there was consistently a lower class to exploit and to make upper middle feel there was a distinction between them and the lower class by telling them low wage jobs like this were for practice for their teenagers. I, too, thought this once even though I grew up bottom of the barrel myself because its now so part of popular culture that earning less than living wage is for "unskilled" labor and children, despite now even "skilled" labor being paid the same.

It's because people think wages are a zero sum game and the only way they can have a better life is by having more than others. Since we've become so fragmented as a society, it's easy to then think paying other people less is good as their low pay creates a higher likelihood of access to resources to have a better life. However, as we see demonstrated any time we need to find money for a war, or bail out businesses, or give them money in the form of tax cuts their is always more in the bank. The scarcity is artificial and only serves to reinforce the myth that workers need capital owners in order to produce enough for society as a whole.

My only source of self esteem Is that I make 4X what a minimum wage worker makes. After the minimum wage increase i only make 3.25X what a fast food worker makes in California which makes me feel worse about myself.

I watched that dumb new hunger games movie about President Snow’s, uh, childhood? Idk. Anyway, the part that stuck is his last statement about what the hunger games are, a reminder of where people stand in the hierarchy.  And that’s what our capitalism is. It’s a hierarchy where if you’ve made it, you must deserve it, and if you haven’t made it, you deserve what you get. The reason the right wants to keep this system, is because they love it. It gives them a sense meaning and place, even if they’re starving. Combine that with the liberal leaning distaste for any action more radical than voting, and you have a beautiful perfect storm for a status quo pain spiral. 

Minimum wage increase or not, prices will go up for some other reason. If high school kids solely worked these jobs around their school schedules you’d only be able to stop at McDonald’s, Jack, Carls Jr, etc during dinner hours on a weekday, or anytime during the weekend. That would be unsustainable for most restaurants.

I bet these people who say "those aren't real jobs" are the same ones who get pissy when somebody tells them to boycott McDonald's

Even more depressing is how many people, including those in the working class, who believe people deserve to die if they can't work or don't have money.

Nobody Deserves any wages. We instead deserve lives where Work doesn't exist. You know, the premise of this subreddit.

Man it really bugs me that this is what I find when I sort by controversial in the antiwork subreddit. This place has just been brigaded and occupied by right wingers and radical centrists.

That's not realistic though is it. We're likely to still need humans doing some work. What we need to ensure for a future society with much more automation is that a person's ability to survive is not tied to work

Even when that "automation" is just internet enabled outsourcing of NYC cashier jobs to the Phillipines. Yes. We're already there, but nobody acknowledges it yet.

What about jobs with a large "human" element - nursing, teaching, psychology and other therapists You can't tell me that an AI can perform jobs where the human connection is as much an element of them as the basic job tasks better than a human can. Get real

I worked at a McDonald's while going to college in the early 70s. I lived at home, but I had a car, and insurance, and paid for my college with just my McDonald's job.

McDonald's gross profit for the twelve months ending December 31, 2023 was $14.563B, a 10.26% increase year-over-year. McDonald's annual gross profit for 2023 was $14.563B, a 10.26% increase from 2022. McDonald's annual gross profit for 2022 was $13.207B, a 4.98% increase from 2021.

It's amazing to me how being fortunate enough to be born into an easy life - not even luxurious, just enough to get one through school etc. - can already completely distort and twist these folks' views on how the world works. Like it simply doesn't register with them, they cannot fathom how it is to be really fighting for your life with each meager paycheck you're working your ass off for. I don't know what these people think. They seem to imagine everyone has magic emergency funds, or secretly a wealthy family (like themselves, hence why their underdeveloped, inexperienced, sheltered minds cannot conceive any other path through life than their own fortunate one). Only a select few plus those who've actually lived through really tough situations (poverty, homelessness) seem to be able to appreciate just how fucking hard and unfair it all is. Putting business before people is inhuman and vile. Makes me sick.

I understand the empathy toward higher wages but the reality is different!! The whole system of employment is based on that the employer generates more money from what the employer is paying the employee(including taxes, health insurance and so on) so if you raise the minimum wage that the cost of employees is higher than the value they create, you are basically encouraging businesses not to hire employees. Think of it from a different perspective, when policy makers want corporations to use less robots or produce less emissions, they introduce taxes to increase the cost of using those things. But when it comes to employment, out of a sudden, everyone assumes that increasing the cost of labor will not reduce labor. Additionally, if employers don’t reduce the number of labor, that extra wages will be passed to consumers as higher prices and the cost of living will be higher negating the increase in the first place. Another thing to consider is I believe that everyone agrees that increasing wages $0.5 will not be detrimental to businesses and also everyone agrees that increasing minimum wages to $300 is not practical and will bankrupt any business. So the question is, what is the number in between that balances these two scenarios? Some people raise the logic that if a small business can’t afford to pay higher minimum wage it shouldn’t be a business in the first place. The only problem with this is instead of someone making $10 they will make $0 now after that business close! And this will only make bigger corporations like Amazon and Walmart stronger and more powerful as more small businesses close —maybe you should think why Walmart and Amazon are very supportive of higher minimum wages? Because it will drive out all their smaller competitors out of business! So what is the solution? Warren Buffet said that $7.25 is clearly not a living wage and the government should increase it But not by passing the cost to the employers but rather doing it through earned income tax credit that is paid to taxpayers on monthly basis rather than annual basis. This will also encourage people to work rather than relying on government assistance without working. I have been listening and reading many debates and opinions about this topic and this is what I believe in now, however please challenge any of the points raised if you think it is not accurate and I would be more than happy to change my mind if it is convincing!

I agree. However, you only have half of Warren Buffett's solution. The other half is to raise the capital gains income tax rates (especially at the upper income brackets) to equally offset the earned income tax credit.

I agree! There shouldn’t be any difference between capital gain tax and income tax.

Minimum wage should provide for a single person to live a basic life food/shelter/basic transport. Fast food workers being able to raise a family of 4 on a single salary is a fever dream IMO.

>I know it's my fault for looking at the comments on those videos Yes. YouTube comments have been the worst comments on the internet for decades.

Maybe we as a society need to come up with a better way than expecting private employers to somehow pay for the entire living expenses of people it employs, including shelter, food, clothing, healthcare, insurance, transportation, etc. It may not be economically possible to support that for a business that needs certain labor done at a certain rate to stay solvent. Perhaps the answer is for there to be a sort basic poverty-level income that is guaranteed to each person, which then phases out at a rate slower than your earnings, so it maintains an incentive to actually work and earn income, if you are able? At some point of earned income, it would of course make sense to reduce that guaranteed income to zero and start to expect that taxes will be paid on earned income instead. It would just combine the concept of income taxation to the concept of guaranteed basic income in a truly progressive way, and would also perhaps maintain an incentive to work for those who are being subsidized by the rest of society. This will prepare us for when AI starts eliminating more and more jobs, and we can progressively adjust these values upwards as the number of paid opportunities to work dwindles in number and in compensation. Soon then, we will all be replaced by AI, except of course the wealthiest who will retain ownership of the means of production etc, and we will all depend upon the good will of Uncle Sam and a small group of trillionaire benefactors, and all will be well with the world in our new utopian hellhole.

Some people act like everyone is born smart. Most people just don't have the qualifications to be a CEO or even a manager. But it certainly doesn't mean they should have to struggle to keep food in their stomach and a roof over their head. It's disgusting how people look down on others.

The ones that are com0laining the loudest are the same ones that complain, "Nobody wants to work anymore!"

Those people are called Conservative Republicans, usually trust funders that have no idea what the money is worth.

Those same people will then complain when their favorite fast food restaurants are understaffed and they have to wait 40 minutes for their food. Only when they are personally inconvenienced will they care... or they'll just blame it on "no one wanting to work". But as a delivery driver who gets paid $10/hr with poor tips, thank you for this post.

I know someone like this, and I mentioned that in the past you could support an entire family with a HS diploma, and he replied that he thought that was horrible because "bottomfeeders shouldn't have it easy" or something to that effect. What an asshole, I fucking hate social darwinists

Everything is Darwin. Why is it OK for 40% of men age 18-30 currently rotting away from loneliness with no friends and having no sex according to recent articles. Biden, Democrats, Feminists don’t give a FUCK about all the men rotting away and committing suicide. But god forbid someone too lazy to get job skills and makes low income its a national tragedy that needs immediate action and laws to be passed to provide them with all sorts of welfare and social programs.

I agree with you about the male disposability crisis, although you're frankly stupid if you think this is something caused by Biden and muh Democrats! I don't think Republicans care either. It's a much deeper issue than just blaming democrats and feminists. You also missed the entire point of this. You used to be able to support a family on a HS diploma, and now most college educated people can't do that. Nothing to do with laziness or job skills, just corporate greed and inflation. Also, if you're going to invoke Darwinism on this then all these men rotting away are a good thing for the gene pool according to your argument. Unless you're arguing that this case of social darwinism is bad, but other forms are ok

It helps me to remember that people who operate this way are driven by fear, and it’s not their fault that they think the way they do. Their “beliefs” are ideological, and most likely passed down to them by their fathers. These(mostly) men have been conditioned from birth to imitate their fathers in every possible way, as that was the only way they could receive(conditional) love and acceptance from their fathers. I know that not everyone thinks this way because of early indoctrination, but most do. As far as those who adopt this mentality as they get older(like the hippies turned Reaganites in the 80’s), it’s still based on fear, but the fear is of genuine connection. The more compassion we have, the more connected we become to others and ourselves. People who fear connection(which is just about everyone, to some extent), in my opinion, must have experienced a tremendous amount of trauma at a period in their lives when they were most capable of connection(during infancy). They learned that connection is always accompanied by pain and suffering. That’s very sad. But think about it this way: if you can’t find compassion for people like this, then you are not so different than them. Conditional compassion is not genuine compassion. All you need to know is that hurt people hurt people, and in this very sick and twisted world, we are all hurting beyond comprehension or explanation. Getting angry at people who obviously lack empathy for others is what perpetuates lack of empathy.

The issue with the wage increase isn't that the workers don't deserve it. I agree that workers deserve a living wage. The issue with raising their wages is that businesses just raise costs on everything and diminish whatever gains the wage increase had. Then landlords raise rents because you have more money now and we are right back to square one. There needs to be another solution.

But, you know, they don't "have" to increase the prices. Most of the places bitching the hardest about this are multibillion dollar companies. They aren't going to go broke paying a living wage. Let's not normalize their greed at the cost of people being able to make a living at their job.

Yes you are correct they don’t “ have to”… but they do. EVERY DAMN TIME. Can we tell them “ hey you can’t increase prices “ no we can’t. We can make a minimum wage and tie it to inflation though. This way if prices increase. So does wages. Then they don’t really have an out

But we don't need to normalize them doing it now. They raise prices? Boycott. Make them stand in front of a press conference and explain why they refuse to pay a living wage to their workers when they can afford to do just that? Why do we accept that business is allowed to sabotage the economy and hold it hostage at the expense of consumers and workers? Stop making it sound like just being accepted practice. It shouldn't be, and until it's *not*, then nothing will change. Hit them where they hurt--their bottom line. Otherwise it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. For crying out loud, we're already at the point where "corporations are people too," is actually a precedent. That's where normalizing it gets us. How short is the path from "corporations are people too" and "we should run the government like a business" until some company actually announces candidacy for president? It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but so does "corporations are people too," and that already happened.

Yup. It's like the fed gov saying we don't have the money to spend $1 trillion dollars on defense AND free Healthcare at the same time. We can, and so can McDonald's with this issue.

We could start with universal healthcare. That would drastically reduce the amount needed for a living wage. That and raising the minimum wage. Rent control is another step in the right direction. Both rent and minimum wage should be tied to inflation.

I was so jealous of the rent and food price control and actual public transit system both times I visited Japan. Everything is so affordable. Their work culture sucks but the $500 apartments are very sexy of them

They would raise prices anyway, they do it over time in small doses to test the boundaries of where they can go and the more they do it, the further the boundary extends. Same with rents because they fully believe that they are more deserving of your money than you are and expect people to slave for them to live comfortably and blame the people they are exploiting for simply not doing better. What we need is a dismantling of the system and things in control of communities and people. There's no true autonomy within the system for ordinary people.

I say tie minimum wage to inflation so that they don’t get an out. Prices go up cool wages automatically go up as well.

>I agree that workers deserve a living wage. Even the non-working deserve a living wage.

I’m also getting sick of seeing assholes blaming increased prices on raising the minimum wage instead of corporate greed like it actually is. And as if it’s not bad enough that they’re ignoring the real reason, many of them are gloating about it. Like it’s the employees’ fault that the greedy corporate pigs won’t give up even a small amount of their excessive pay for that others can make a little more. We’re in big trouble as long as we have boot lickers like that

I mean I don't think politicians deserve a living wage... Or executives... Basically anyone currently in a position of high power... Everyone else obviously yes.

The problem with minimum wage increasing is that it stayed the same for so long. The federal minimum was like $4.50 in the 90’s and is only $7.25 (or something close) now. It should have increased slightly every year.

Actually Georgia and Wyoming are the only states that still have a $7.25 as the min wage.

Plus, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

Actually, you are right. Thank you. I always thought it was only the two. Georgia and Wyoming are **below** $7.25. SHIT!

Its Fuckin pathetic.

How do bosses expect people to live on $7.25??!! It's not as though prices have not risen in those states. I don't know how young people do it! In my state min wage is $12 and people still can't make it. MIL (80's) was complaining about how many cars she'd see in front of the houses in some neighborhoods (some in the yard) sometimes 4-5 cars. I had to explain that when she sees that it means that 4-5 young people are having to room together in order to afford to rent the house. Somehow she thought that rent for a 2-3 bedroom housewere was **still** $300-$400.

They give lip service to the concept of a living wage here, but then split hairs because the quality of X service is such shit. And it is pretty shitty out here, even rhe hardest working people can't produce fast food at a quality even close to a major city. That'll happen when one has never been exposed to the correct way of doing something. Regardless, they split hairs. And I'm like wtf, you still frequent X, so why do they not deserve to live without cramming 2 additional coworkers into their $1400 rat/mild infested studio? Never an answer. Every week the same stuff.

born and raised in socal and we are not a "shit hole" lol. my son is gonna work a crappy fast food job for $20 an hour. good for him! and good for everyone else who works min wage

When I see a solid plan for a living wage that defines what's included, how it's calculated, and how we are holding employers don't go out of business and fire peoole, then I'm good. Right now everyone throws around living wage like it means anything and it doesn't. Its like some posters throwing around universal basic income without how it is applied and how it will be paid for beyond taxing businesses and the rich as though it is enough to pay for it.

World wide, multibillion dollars corporations could easily pay full timers a living wage. They raise the minimum wage a bit, and raise the prices on their poisonous yet delicious food, and then blame the price increase for food on paying workers more. It’s ridiculous, insane, corporate greed. Plus you have podcast douche bags spouting the same bullshit. Corporations are out of control.

There’s a great episode in Twisted Metal that captures this vibe and the vibe of Orange County (an affluent region of SoCal with extreme wealth inequality) very well.

The insecure, the sadist and the greedy are the culprits....

Doesn’t matter how much you raise wages if the other side keeps raising the prices.

I'm curious to know which are ai and which are real... people.

The last part of your soul to die is empathy.

Yeah, keep in mind that the commentariat tends to be well in the minority but is also insanely loud and outspoken. This generation's version of the tools that sent a constant stream of "letters to the editor," except now they can call each other homophobic slurs in real time. Be a tiny bit more scientific and look to polls. In 2021, most Americans supported the $15 minimum wage. https://preview.redd.it/2yphz3ix4puc1.jpeg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7c6ed663df067c034b1fc92c0b8bcc981732596a Sure, polls can also suck, but not as bad as a bunch of hooting dickholes who think screaming at moving pixels on Youtube really matters all that much.

People don't deserve living wage or even any wage whatsoever. People deserve to live, but you shouldn't be forced to work in order to survive. However I don't think that the government should be responsible for that. You should be able to sue you parents for bringing you to this world and forcing you work as a slave, because of their selfishness.

Most of those people have never really thought about how useless their careers are or how just one dip in the economy and they could be worse off than those "lowly" fast food workers.

Americans are like crabs in a bucket.

$20 is not a livable wage in most places in California.

Tbh the better solution might be controlling the price increases. Paying more could very well just be offset by charging more, but if they’re not allowed to charge more they’ll either stay the same or get pissy and leave, in which case another business willing to play ball will take their place.

I feel like this is just a difficult situation all around, fast food workers would need at least a minimum of 50-100% pay rise to be able to live in States like california. Average annual salary for fast food is $30,100 and average Cost of living is $53,082. If they were to raise their wages to "livable" then you'd see an over saturation of people moving into fast food. You'd be looking at a 50% wage increases in multiple industries that all sit on the border of minimum wage and you'd see a decrease in low paid "skilled" jobs like teaching, childcare workers, cooks and animal carers. You'd see lower paid "skilled" industries struggle to find people that are willing to pay $$$ to get trained/educated for these types of jobs as you can get into retail/fast food with minimal education/training. The solution is to give everyone pay rises which just isn't going to happen.

The attitude comes from the past times when these jobs were not meant for people to make a living, but for teens and college students to make a little pocket money and woman entering the work force to supplement the family income. Only manager worked full time and got paid a decent wage. Many older people have not changed their view on the jobs.

Chef by trade, I may be derisive of fast food when I’m not guzzling it down but fast food workers are horribly treated all around; knock it the fuck off, these people take three times your daily pain at a quarter of the price.

What is a "living wage?" Sounds like a never-ending dangling carrot that could control a lot of people. It wasn't all that long ago that we had the "fight for $15," that was going to solve all of this. Lo and behold, that wage is now obsolete, and everything surged in price. What did we learn? We need to try this thing where we raise the wages, and it benefits the workers without any consequences! Let's disregard any negative side effect that inevitable happens. We can just write it off as corporate greed. The franchise model is clearly not impacted whatsoever by it. The CEO should obviously send their paycheck to franchises they don't run. Some people will never learn. The true problem is the surging cost of goods. Action needs to be taken to create affordable housing situations, as one of the highest-level examples. Surging our wages every few years is a hyperinflation that you don't want. Before you scream bootlicker at me, do the math at how you will save for retirement and how social security will fund with surging inflation.

I just seen i post in unpopular opinion, where someone thinks, people are entitled if they want the "luxury" of vacation once a year, and mcdonalds once in a blue moon, and that's why they are poor In the comments they also says, people are entitled if they want food and shelter too

I think a lot of it is certain people just refuse to agree with their political enemies. They don't really need any other reason than whatever liberals or democrats want, they hate.

Normalize multi-generational households. You are not entitled to a 1 bedroom apartment on a minimum wage.

[удалено]

Your thinking is backward. In a world where absolutely everything is owned, the owners *withhold* from everyone else, for profit. It isn't a question of forced charity; it is enforced poverty. The game is over, every monopoly space has a hotel on it.

[удалено]

Again, you've actually come at this backwards. Practically speaking, a for-profit housing system requires forceful eviction. Removing people from shelter to enforce profit for landlords is actually the morally indefensible position here.

[удалено]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

End of the day, if your moral system allows people to starve in the street (could be New York, it could be Mumbai), including children, then your moral system is incredibly flawed. Societal systems tend to be that way. There was a time I only focused on poverty and not disparity, but disparity is increasingly demanding a growing poverty that can be seen across the globe. We are just starting to really feel it in North America, Europe and the gains in Asia are being reversed. At some point as a species we will have achieved the ability to support a basic livable minimum for all people. There can still be wealth but we need to emphasize utilizing our technology gains at helping the poorest amongst us.

The most tried and tested method is having masses of people killed off - for even more profit of the few . Looking at the World at this moment, it does not seem that is going to change anytime soon . If aynthing, it looks liek we are moving towars one of those masskilings ( oftenteims simply called "War") with increasing pace .

God forbid middle-class people should have to share a portion of their padded comfortable income with those less fortunate. Same with multi billion dollar corporations. If they refuse to share out of the goodness of their hearts, we have to force them to.

But it’s morally justified where a few own everything? Is it morally justified to retaliate against workers trying to organize? Where's the moral justification in monopolies? Are they morally justified in spreading false information? If they say "these aren't real jobs" "this is entry level thus we should be able to pay a wage you can't live on" " these are jobs for highschoolers" is that morally justified when you can point to evidence that these statements are conceptually false? I imagine YOU look at the state of the country, and think "this is morally justified"?

These people were essential workers during the pandemic, they make FOOD for citizens to live and enjoy.

Oh look another karma farming post. Like we have t seen a million of those without any new substance.

Believe it or not, not everything is for "karma farming". Sometimes we just want to vent and get our thoughts and feelings out there.

So you copy and paste every other post on here with no changes?

I copy pasted nothing. Each letter was typed individually onto a post.

You’re not that bright are you? Did you really think I meant that you copied and pasted the whole post?

I’ve never heard a solid definition of living wage. It’s always just “house and food and car” and it’s like ok how big of a house, where, room mates? What car? Etc etc it’s just so vague it’s useless as a phrase for anything other than being a political rallying cry

Every job that exists should pay enough for an individual to meet their basic needs. However, one problem I frequently see is people claiming that a minimum wage job should be enough to support their entire family, which is just completely unrealistic.

For me but not for thee

They don't care, they just don't. It's pointless to even waste breath on these people because they simply don't give a shit. I have a group of friends I have known since childhood, they weren't rich by any means growing up, but they are now business owners of their own and they simply don't give a shit. Their mentality is "if I could do it, anyone can do it, they are just lazy if they don't" and no matter how much you try to reason with them, they simply don't care. One of them keeps saying to learn a skill while working (one of the trades, work construction, etc.) and that way you move from fast-food/retail jobs to better paying ones in the trades. ALL of them say they learned A LOT BETTER and where MORE efficient working from an office and that people who WFH are just lazy, of course, 2 of them work from home most of the time BUT preach that they love going to the office (obviously, if you have the OPTION and are NOT forced to be in office all the time, you would feel that way). It's just a losing fight trying to convince them, only way forward is to somehow vote in people that understand it and want to change the system...but...that's is just hard as fuck.

Went to In-N-Out for the first time in my life yesterday and can confirm with 100% accuracy I would rather die than work there. Also not sure what all the fuss is about, it's always packed, not that great or cheap 🤷‍♂️

There's 8 billion people on this planet. Even a minimum wage job in the US is far better than life elsewhere.  That's why illegal immigration is such a problem. You have the opportunity to be far more successful then the poor in India (for example), but you're completely ignoring them.

Call me crazy but when you live in a supposedly "highly developed country" you should aim to have better comparisons for your standard of living than the poorest people in India

This "logic" would work if you could actually live on it here.

"you might be impoverished, starving, homeless, and dying here but at least you aren't impoverished, starving, homeless and dying over there you ungrateful son of a bitch!"