RE: Texas Politics
What I see OO saying (that I agree with) is that companies quite often pay more than the federal, state or local government says they must to attract the talent they want. The 'minimum' wage of a Bucee's employee looks like its around $16. Same for Amazon. McDonald's is around 10 it seems and my local Shell is $12.50.
The problem here is that I don't see 'Life Guard' as a 'minimum wage job'. That job QUITE LITERALLY is there to save people's lives and involves skills and experience beyond the 'minimum'. If you as an employer need more skills than someone with no experience, little education beyond say 10th grade and limited skills, then that too is not a 'minimum wage' job. A minimum wage job, almost by definition is one that almost anyone could do with little training.
What you do when you 'raise' the minimum wage to $15 or whatever is that you create more minimum wage jobs. Not more jobs, just more jobs that pay the least they are allowed. Someone tasked to save your child from drowning is now a minimum wage employee.... almost by your own admission here... no different from the guy who tears tickets at the movie theatre or checks your receipt at WalMart. I don't know what the equivalent jobs for the City of Austin would be, but I hope you know what I mean.... Something much less important and skilled than saving lives.... which I suspect includes specialized training in swimming, CPR, first aid and the like. A $15 min wage will certainly create more supply of people willing to tear tickets at the theatre, but it won't teach anyone to be a life guard... and more importantly, will more than likely result in the elimination of the ticket takers job. The left will say that this creates a job making the 'robot' or whatever replaces them, but by and large those jobs won't be here... and certainly won't be taken by people whose other option was tearing tickets. Their other argument would be that it pushes people up the food chain, and that will happen a bit, yes... but now you've got a guy with the skills and experience to tear tickets being hired as a life guard without the necessary skills or experience.
I feel like this is a circuitous argument made by 'the left'... Not that (other than at the very top) any one individual holds both of these positions, but that depending on the underlying conditions, each side of this coin is argued...
When labor markets are tight as they are now, we need to raise min wages because despite the fact that labor markets are tight and businesses can't find people who will work for those wages, businesses won't raise wages on their own.
When labor markets are loose and lots of people are looking for work, we need to raise minimum wages because those who ARE working can't live on these wages and businesses, suffering from declining profits because of the slow economy won't raise wages on their own.
Either way, the 'rationale' is that we need the government to force businesses to raise wages because businesses are evil and won't respond to market forces.
It seems to me that to the extent we need to do ANYTHING, it would be to decide on the definition of a minimum wage job. To me, that's a job that it takes few skills or training or experience to do. The sort of job that certainly a few adults do, but most often you see a high school kid doing. These are not MEANT to be jobs that you 'live on your own' or 'raise a family' on. They are the sort of jobs where at least PART of what you are 'being paid' is gaining experience and learning skills that you would expect to take to 'the next step' which would at least be 'leading' people with no experience or skills. A bit like an internship. This should be LESS THAN a 'livable' wage... and if for some reason, someone needs to LIVE on it (because of poor economic conditions or handicap or other) then the government can supplement that income through assistance or tax credits or what have you.
Moving forward, the 'minimum wage' could adjust annually by the rate of inflation, or perhaps some measure of 'other' wage inflation (wages other than minimum) with perhaps a 5-10 year 'review' (which would be done 2-5 years before any changes would be made effective)... and again... if the government thinks things have gotten out of whack, they can supplement those incomes for the remaining 2-5 years of the 'contract' while businesses can prepare for the coming hike.
Of course we all know what will happen here... Congress won't agree on what should happen next so we will end up with supplements and delays to these schedules that will align with upcoming elections and make them talking points, so we need to find some way to do away with the ability to skip or accelerate these things.... or perhaps even 'give in' to them...
By that I mean... We pass a min wage of (just for conversation) $8 effective 1/1/2023 with COLA adjustments tied to CPI through 2030... but changes in the rate beyond 2030 must be decided before 2027 (just after the 2026 elections) so that voters can have a say prior to the change, and businesses can have time to prepare for the changes. Should Congress fail to reach an accord, perhaps the current situation will remain for 4 more years, with no ability to change it prior to then. Should something like the pandemic or Bidenflation come into play and it not be easily reflected through the CPI adjustment, congress can vote on a 'stimulus' or what have you if they can't wait.... or maybe we tie increases to say 60% of the 'median' wage... IDK, but something that makes logical sense.
|
