General Strike on October 15th

Post Reply New Topic

As for the impacts of raising minimum wage? Tough s**t, if your business relies on paying less than a living wage it doesn't have a viable business model and shouldn't be subsidized by underpaying the people who keep it running.

Got to wonder why the businesses dont just get rid of the wasteful spending at the top . and possibly lose a few corporate executives instead. These huge businesses have already put most all of the mom and pop grocery stores out of business . Do they have created a monopoly for their business model. And these big grocery chains . Only source their foods from the cheapest supplier.
So quality of your fresh food is at risk. Have watched this stuff go on since the sixties . Recently the meat dept. here at the local big chain has gone down on quality . Am not even sure their stuff meets USDA requirements , unless you pay extra. Have to drive extra far to find quality fresh meats.

I mean, OK, if you're specifically trying to put businesses out of business then a minimum wage 25% higher than Argentina (adjusted for purchasing power parity - in nominal dollar terms it would be six times Argentina) makes sense. But I don't think the purpose of a minimum wage should be to close businesses. It should be to raise take-home pay. If you raise some people's pay, but reduce other people's to zero, it's great for the people who keep their jobs but really sucks for the people who lose theirs. And if you go to a $20 minimum wage next year, you'll cause a lot of places to cut jobs. Maybe they don't go out of business, but they get one person to do the work that was previously done by three.

If we're talking about raising the minimum wage by incremental amounts (say going up by 50c a year for the next ten years and then indexing to inflation) then sure, there's a case to be made that a business which can't deal with those increases is probably going to fail soon anyway. But $20 is not an incremental increase, it would take the US from middle-of-the-pack to the highest minimum wage in the world, by far.

According to MIT, most places in the US seem to have a living wage of <$15, and many <$13. Only the big cities have living wages approaching $20.

All this being said, if a number of large unions decided to get together and ballot for strikes simultaneously, they could probably force their employers to pay more, and that might force other employers to raise wages to keep up.

I'd imagine one reason is that they're the same people who make the decisions. Why cut your own useless position and end up without a job when you can fire some plebs and get a bonus for improving profitability?

Such pessimism.......... the truth of it can make a person almost sad. Obviously the greed in the system , should have become unbearable long ago.

Am left to wonder the pencil pusher or the metal worker deserves more money ?

If they ask for $15 they'll be lucky to get $12. If they ask for $20 they can negotiate down to $15, or $17 or the best deal they can get.

But potentially even if some minimum wage positions are eliminated the people who's wages go up will have more money to spend which might lead to new job opportunities for people down the line.

Those supporting this probably think the government should give everyone a free apartment, free food, and a stipend to spend on magic beans. And that wouldn't make for a functioning society because way too many people would just sit back and play Magic cards all day. There would be no incentive or reward for individual achievement.

This doesn’t make sense if we’re talking about a federal minimum wage, which is not negotiated between workers and employers, but rather set by the government in order to appease voters.

There are large parts of the US where $12 would be challenging. There are other parts, particularly cities, where you could go much further. But that is better served by targeting state and local government. Or alternatively, striking specifically at your place of work with the support of a union.

Modest increases are unlikely to have much impact upon employment. Mostly, workers will be asked to work harder and prices will go up a bit. But big jumps, like tripling the minimum wage to make it the highest in the world, would be chaotic and unpredictable. The minimum wage does have a stimulatory effect but it would be a big gamble that this would counteract other effects in the event of such a large rise. Moderate, steady rises are safer and more sustainable.

So what would you suggest for workers who don't currently have collective bargaining agreements to improve their compensation?

From every businessman and news outlet comes the myth that America is facing a worker shortage. Businesses across America are cutting store hours, offering hiring bonuses to deliver pizza, and even advertising to younger demographics such as 14-year-olds to recruit labor. Yet, at the same time, America is still facing unemployment. The unemployment rate sits at 4.8%, far lower than October 2020’s 6.9% but still a number that accounts for more than seven million Americans out of America’s labor force of 161 million.

Is there a worker shortage? No. There is a capital strike.

A capital strike occurs when capital “refuse[s] to invest in the economy.” Why would capital not invest in the system that it is tied to heart and soul, like a man starving himself when food is on his shelf? Leverage. Capital strikes can “become a bargaining chip by which business can exert influence over the policy process, with reinvestment promised in exchange for policy concessions,” and in the middle is the American worker. It is a waiting game to see who breaks first: worker or capital. If there are 7.67 million unemployed people in America surely businesses could incentivize participating in the economy with better wages, access to health insurance, and other minimum expectations for a good job. No.

A survey of 1,800 workers hunting for jobs found that 48% of workers were frustrated with the search, and 46% said they only found openings for low-paying roles. 40% said they have applied to jobs they think they’re overqualified for yet at the same time 85% are willing to take a pay cut if it means getting a job. The survey shows a series of contradictions, that workers feel like they are overqualified yet are still being stiffed by business and at the very same time, the massive majority of them are willing to take a pay cut if it means securing some work. These statistics appear to show that there is not some blue moon event where there are not enough workers to fill the economy but rather a section of workers are not being bullied into taking lesser jobs and would rather sit out of the economy than be on the losing side of the stick.

Business is not just passively stiffing workers to have their way but has shown its teeth in overt power plays to keep business advantageous for them. In February of 2021, during the thick of the pandemic, Kroger closed two of its grocery stores in Long Beach, California because the city council gave the workers a $4 raise. In writing, there are a million ways to explain Kroger’s motive for turning dozens out of their jobs out of spite but on the streets of America, there is a simple manner of words for this: it’s a go f**k yourself. Kroger told NPR the closures were because the stores were closing and that “[w]e are truly saddened that our associates and customers will ultimately be the real victims of the city council’s actions.” That quote belongs in the dictionary under “passive-aggressive.”

In sum: there is no shortage of workers. There are millions of workers unemployed who would happily take on a job if it showed them what they want. The answers are almost universal: better wages, remote or hybrid options, health insurance, and other items that progressives have advocated for years. Rather than offer workers a fair wage or health insurance in the middle of a global pandemic businesses would rather siege down workers until they accede to low wages and no benefits. Jacobin explains it beautifully: “The idea of answering to anyone, be it workers or a city council, is anathema for these companies.”

Yes, strikes have worked in the past.

But strikes are risky---especially these days.

In the 1930s, wages sucked, so going on strike didn't adversely affect one's living as much as it does these days.