Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
53 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How Low Would Pay Go If Minimum Wage Law Were To Be Abolished Like The GOP Wants? (Original Post) TheMastersNemesis Oct 2012 OP
Slavery. FightForMichigan Oct 2012 #1
No way. Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #13
You can live pretty good on $96 per week Hugabear Oct 2012 #38
15 dollars a day and a cheese sandwich for lunch. MADem Oct 2012 #2
The cheese sandwich is pretty damn extravagant if ya ask me. Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #15
If they're doing heavy labor, they need fuel....oh, and potable drinking water, too! MADem Oct 2012 #24
Depends on what you mean by "potable." Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #33
Just so long as there's no pooping! Pooping disrupts the work flow! nt MADem Oct 2012 #34
No shit. Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #37
You've coined the assembly line logo! nt MADem Oct 2012 #40
Make them wear adult diapers Hugabear Oct 2012 #39
Q--Should bathroom breaks be allowed" Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #43
You would get dollars a day not dollars per hour. liberal N proud Oct 2012 #3
This ^ geardaddy Oct 2012 #12
labor ready shanti Oct 2012 #23
$2.13 = current minimum wage in Nebraska for waitresses Care Acutely Oct 2012 #4
Not quite Sgent Oct 2012 #17
The law AlexSatan Oct 2012 #18
Still bullshit. The employer profits from the labor of the watress. Care Acutely Oct 2012 #25
Agreed standingtall Oct 2012 #26
I have no problem supporting this AlexSatan Oct 2012 #42
Careful, there. theKed Oct 2012 #45
I disagree AlexSatan Oct 2012 #47
Well...yes? theKed Oct 2012 #49
Well, ...nope. AlexSatan Nov 2012 #51
It really shows theKed Nov 2012 #52
Except that they don't AlexSatan Nov 2012 #53
As low as it is in China treestar Oct 2012 #5
Dorms be damned. Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #35
Betting that AsahinaKimi Oct 2012 #6
Can not go to low, because of gas and housing vinny9698 Oct 2012 #7
Zero. The 1% want the benefits of slavery hifiguy Oct 2012 #8
Lowering wages will crush the economy. L0oniX Oct 2012 #9
My guess is that we would see "seasonal slavery" like farmers used to use in Central America... Blue Meany Oct 2012 #10
So what? Jackpine Radical Oct 2012 #36
They would want you to PAY THEM for the privilege of working. swayne Oct 2012 #11
they already do something similar now with unpaid internships NuttyFluffers Oct 2012 #31
Just look at the restaurant industry, where they regularly lobby for zero pay. (nt) Posteritatis Oct 2012 #14
Employees will be able to sell themselves to corporations thecrow Oct 2012 #16
You'd have to pay to work, and get nothing, and if you refused, be thrown in prison. begin_within Oct 2012 #19
Pay? What is this "pay" that you speak of??? Initech Oct 2012 #20
indentured servitude eShirl Oct 2012 #21
They work for a buck an hour in China. That's what I'd expect here. HopeHoops Oct 2012 #22
Actually the average manufacturing wage there is around $3.25 an hour now. It was under $1 pampango Oct 2012 #32
The jobs outsourced to China from Sensata are $1/hr. at the manufacturing level. HopeHoops Oct 2012 #44
And while they are at it an 8 hr day would no longer exist Kingofalldems Oct 2012 #27
Yup, they'd come back to the insistence durablend Oct 2012 #29
You'll work (for free) or off to jail with you durablend Oct 2012 #28
it would go negative. you'd get wage slavery indebtedness. NuttyFluffers Oct 2012 #30
We would make Chinese peasants look like the 1% n/t MountainLaurel Oct 2012 #41
I've heard Republicans say that if US workers want to compete with Chinese workers gollygee Oct 2012 #46
Ever read "Oliver Twist"? Fire Walk With Me Oct 2012 #48
Lower than the lowest in China. Competition, level playing field, you know. AlinPA Oct 2012 #50

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
13. No way.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:28 AM
Oct 2012

Slaves are expensive to keep. Better to have a disposable labor force. I should think $1/hour would be a good round figure, at least in climates where you can sleep under the bridge all year. That would be $16 a day, 6 days a week. No point in being greedy--let 'em have Sundays off if they can document that they go to a good Fundie church.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
38. You can live pretty good on $96 per week
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:55 PM
Oct 2012

As long as you don't mind living in an alleyway, wearing the same clothes all the time, and eating from the dollar menu at McDonalds.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
24. If they're doing heavy labor, they need fuel....oh, and potable drinking water, too!
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 12:45 PM
Oct 2012

Can't have 'em passing out on the job--then two others will have to stop their work to toss the fainter to the side.

Of course, the cheese sandwich would be made from Welfare Cheese, purchased from rMoney government larders, at a steep discount! It would also serve to "bind up" the workers (see? Not just women can do that "binding" thing!) so they wouldn't be taking too many poop breaks that would slow them from their labors. They can poop on their own time!!!

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
33. Depends on what you mean by "potable."
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:48 PM
Oct 2012

My definition would permit any harmless contaminants, where "harmless" is defined as "not likely to kill or seriously sicken the worker within the time period during which he/she is still useful to the company." On average, under the system I propose, I expect that workers will be useful for about 3 years before they need replacement from the Unemployed pool.

liberal N proud

(60,289 posts)
3. You would get dollars a day not dollars per hour.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:19 AM
Oct 2012

Think China or India.

The jobs would come back, but standard of living would drop like a rock.

shanti

(21,668 posts)
23. labor ready
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 12:44 PM
Oct 2012

used to hire lots of people for day labor and the pay was $40 per day. not sure if that was before or after taxes. that would be about $5 an hour. people fought for those jobs too, and they were backbreaking. even these kinds of jobs have fallen off the radar now though...

Care Acutely

(1,370 posts)
4. $2.13 = current minimum wage in Nebraska for waitresses
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
Oct 2012

I think that gives us an idea of what it would look like.

Sgent

(5,856 posts)
17. Not quite
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:57 AM
Oct 2012

I used to be a waiter / bartender. Although we get paid $2.13, the minimum wage is actually the same as for anyone else -- if we do not make the difference in tips over the course of a week, the restaurant must pay the difference.

At my restaurant at least, the first time they had to do that you'd be retrained, the second time you'd be fired. I actually was ok with this, as even when I was working the small sections as a new waiter I made much more -- someone who couldn't make the minimum wage was having issues serving customers.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
18. The law
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:58 AM
Oct 2012

If the employer is not abiding by the law, the employer should be reported.

What is the minimum wage for workers who receive tips?
An employer may pay a tipped employee not less than $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equal at least the federal minimum wage, the employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/q-a.htm#.UI_5GHU5zng

Care Acutely

(1,370 posts)
25. Still bullshit. The employer profits from the labor of the watress.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 12:54 PM
Oct 2012

The employer should pay the base wage. The patron's tip should be purely a reward for good service and tolerating the MF'ing public. The only reason this paternalistic bull is allowed to continue is the majority of waitstaff in the nation are still female and poor, vulnerable with little power by definition.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
26. Agreed
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:32 PM
Oct 2012

That system is nothing more than wage theft made legal. A tip should be considered a gift not a wage, and nor should tips be taxed.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
42. I have no problem supporting this
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 04:17 PM
Oct 2012

I hate it that my waitstaff often has to split it with the hostess, bar and others. Pay them a base wage and let my tip go to the person who earned it.

That's why I usually tip 10% on the credit card and the rest in cash.

theKed

(1,235 posts)
45. Careful, there.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 06:24 PM
Oct 2012

The host/hostess serves a vital function, seating guests in sections at a controlled pace so each server is able to properly serve the tables they have, keeping track of reservations, and so on.

The bartender makes all the drinks for that server and all the other servers, so that they aren't tripping over each other making their own drinks (and slowing down service to everybody in the process)

The bussers clear the tables for the servers, so they are able to direct more of their time to giving you the best dining experience, and allowing you to get a table more quickly.

The kitchen (if it's a restaurant that tips out the kitchen staff - not all do) aren't taking it easy back there. They're cooking for lots of people, in a gruelling environment, and getting your food out quickly and to the table hot.

Even the managers might qualify for some of that tip. They coordinate all those different aspects of the restaurant labour and smooth over any difficulties during the service.

Each and every one of those people contributes to your dinner experience. Should you just tip the face that shows up at your table? Why just them, because they smiled and said "have a nice night"? Is it because those others "make more money"? The bussers, host(esses), and bartenders sure don't. And when you include those tips into their take-home, servers are often the best paid person in the restaurant...if they aren't, they are probably not very good at their job (or should look into working at a restaurant that gets customers through the door)

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
47. I disagree
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 08:25 PM
Oct 2012

It is pretty hard for a hostess to screw up from a diner’s perspective. Sure, from a management perspective it matters, but not from mine (as a diner). Having him/her chat me up as I walk to a table does nothing for my experience.

At many of the places we go, the servers have a second station for drinks. Those who get alcohol are perfectly capable of tipping the person who makes their drinks.

As with the hostess, the bussers have an impact on the functioning of the restaurant (and should have a set wage) and do not impact my dining experience. If the wait is going to be too long (due to poor bussing) we leave—again the management’s problem.

For the kitchen staff, I don’t know of any place that does tip them out. However, I have specifically tipped the kitchen staff before.

The waitstaff by far has the most impact on my meal—refilling drinks, replacing bread/rolls, ensuring the order is right. The kitchen is the second in impacting my meal. The rest have almost no impact.

Using your logic, your newspaper carrier should be tipping out to everyone who prints, writes or drives the truck to deliver the papers to central locations.

theKed

(1,235 posts)
49. Well...yes?
Wed Oct 31, 2012, 10:52 PM
Oct 2012

So when the hostess screws up and seats 5 tables in Sever A's section within 10 minutes of each other, causing the server to not be able to quickly come take your drink order, that doesn't impact your dinner? When they don't have time to refill your bread because they're running food and drinks to all the other tables that sat and ordered at the same time, that doesn't affect your dinner experience?

When you have to wait 10 minutes longer because there's no busser to clear the table, or they aren't quick enough, that doesn't affect your dinner experience?

The functioning of the restaurant IS your dining experience. To think otherwise is simply foolish.

The server is often the least impactful on your total dining experience. They are the smiling, chirpy mask on top of all the other things going on behind the scenes in the restaurant.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
51. Well, ...nope.
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:33 AM
Nov 2012

It can affect my dinner, but if I see the server is busting his/her ass because they oversat her, I’m not going to take it out on him/her.

I will mention it to management and, if it is a regular occurrence, go somewhere else from then on. Again, that is a management problem.

If I have to wait too long, I go somewhere else—management’s problem.

Usually there are multiple hostesses. If ones screws up, should the waitstaff and other hostesses be punished? If there is only one and he/she screws up but the waitstaff compensates, should he/she be rewarded? Nope and Nope.

And thanks, but you have no clue what impacts my dining experience and what I value. We go through a lot of drinks (4-5 each) and bread and we tip knowing we are somewhat high maintenance. The biggest factor on our experience is whether the drinks are kept refilled. I realize it is hard to cook a meal, especially steak, perfectly (which I what I am avoiding when going out to eat), so I cut them some slack.

The hostess and bus job never change—seat people as table comes open and clear dishes. The waitstaff, on the other hand, have to deal with personalities, complex orders, and differing needs of patrons.

And no, I am not biased because I was or ever have been waitstaff-- I haven’t.

theKed

(1,235 posts)
52. It really shows
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 09:27 PM
Nov 2012

that you have no restaurant experience. You only have a surface understanding of that part that directly interacts with you.

However, as someone that's worked in the industry in a lot of different places, and a lot of types of restaurants, you are really ignorant of how these things operate. And yes, as a ridiculously overqualified member of the trade, I do have something of an idea what you value and what impacts your dining experience...it's my job to know those things.

When the server tips out the host(ess)/bartender/kitchen/busser/etc, it's not you tipping them. It's the server tipping them for making their job easier. They tip the busser so that the busser moves quickly clearing their section, so the server can get more tables in. They tip out the kitchen for making their food properly and promptly, helping ensure a positive reaction from the customer (and a better tip at the end). And so on. Their tipout doesn't even come from the tips directly. The vast, vast, vast majority of establishments take tipouts as a (tiny) percentage of overall sales and redistribute it to others.

On the other hand, if the servers are pooling their tips between themselves and splitting them up after the shift, I don't necessarily agree to that. But, that's an oddity for the most part, especially the higher up the restaurant foodchain you go.

 

AlexSatan

(535 posts)
53. Except that they don't
Thu Nov 1, 2012, 10:10 PM
Nov 2012

If it was optional (as tipping is for the patrons) for the server to tip out to the others, then you might have a point. But since it is a set, mandatory percentage, it is not tip.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
5. As low as it is in China
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:21 AM
Oct 2012

And dorms near the factory so the workers can get up on command. Remember Steve Jobs saying how great that was?

Mitt was practically salivating in that 47% tape about having workers who were so eager to get the jobs, they were lined up outside, waiting for someone to quit (having saved up enough to go back to the village and get married, for the girls.)

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
35. Dorms be damned.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:51 PM
Oct 2012

We have perfectly good bridges, doorways & heating grates in this country.

China is a liberal nanny-state.

vinny9698

(1,016 posts)
7. Can not go to low, because of gas and housing
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:21 AM
Oct 2012

The city of Galveston is hurting for low income workers. Hurricane Ike destroyed low income government housing. The city officials want the federal dollars but do not want to spend it on low income housing. The city is a tourist attraction, so most of the jobs are part-time minimum wage jobs Housemaids, restaurants, gift shops, are the major employers. Now to drive from Texas City which is the closest town about 20 miles away it is not practically because the gas alone makes it not worthwhile to work.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
8. Zero. The 1% want the benefits of slavery
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:22 AM
Oct 2012

without the costs of keeping the slaves healthy enough to work.

 

Blue Meany

(1,947 posts)
10. My guess is that we would see "seasonal slavery" like farmers used to use in Central America...
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:26 AM
Oct 2012

There they would round Indians to do the farm work during the planting and harvesting, then set them free the rest of the year because they didn't want to feed them.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
36. So what?
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:53 PM
Oct 2012

All the better for those who measure their personal worth in terms of the differences between themselves & everyone else. The rich do just fine in countries with crashed economies.

NuttyFluffers

(6,811 posts)
31. they already do something similar now with unpaid internships
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:43 PM
Oct 2012

there's no promise you'll ever be hired on, you can be fired at will, and you have to pay all your expenses.

so, you're exactly right, they'll always want it worse.

thecrow

(5,519 posts)
16. Employees will be able to sell themselves to corporations
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 11:43 AM
Oct 2012

Indentured service.... then they will work toward being released.

eShirl

(18,462 posts)
21. indentured servitude
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 12:39 PM
Oct 2012

debt collection and temp employment will merge and "let" you work off your debt by selling your labor as a temp worker. you will live in a dorm and eat cafeteria slop.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
32. Actually the average manufacturing wage there is around $3.25 an hour now. It was under $1
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 02:37 PM
Oct 2012

an hour 10 years ago.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/10/29/the-revival-of-american-manufacturing-but-the-jobs-still-arent-coming-back/

This is happening just as other clusters of manufacturing – machinery, electrical products, transport equipment, furniture, etc – are “re-shoring” back from from China to the US. A 16% annual rise in Chinese wages over the last decade has changed the game.

It is true that this re-shoring is happening. But again there’s not all that much extra employment that is going to come from it. And the secret to that is in that Chinese wages number. Those wages have indeed risen by 16% a year for a decade: and two years ago we could have said by 14% since the millennium. But just 16% per year for a decade means they have risen over 4 times. Yes, really, Chinese manufacturing wages are over four times what they were only ten years ago. This is quite probably the fastest and largest rise in general wages in the history of our entire species. The thing is, such Chinese manufacturing wages are still only in the $6,000 to $7,000 a year range. Much better than they were but still nowhere near as high as those in the US.

Which is where our problem comes in for the US job count. Because China is also losing manufacturing jobs. No, not just those being re-shored. They’re losing many more than that. And they’re losing them to machines. Take Apple‘s fabricator, Foxconn, they’ve just over 1 million people working for them at present. And they’ve announced plans to install 1 million robots over the next three years. Even at a cost per worker of $6,000 a year it seems that it is cheaper to use a robot, a machine, than a person. And as we can all note, a US employee costs rather more than $6,000 a year in wages. So there most certainly won’t be a mass flood of jobs from China to the US. Just as there isn’t a massive expansion of jobs from those natural gas prices.

Simply because in most of manufacturing it is now cheaper to buy a machine than it is to hire a worker.

durablend

(7,402 posts)
29. Yup, they'd come back to the insistence
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
Oct 2012

"There's 168 hours in a week YOU LEECH! GET TO WORK YOU LAZY DEADBEAT!!!!!!"

NuttyFluffers

(6,811 posts)
30. it would go negative. you'd get wage slavery indebtedness.
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 01:41 PM
Oct 2012

regular slavery is just too expensive an alternative. by rights of property laws you are expect to somewhat have to care for those slaves.

wage slaves owe YOU money, and you don't have to care if they live or die. they're not your property, so you have zero responsibility.

we've done this before in history. anyone remember the saying, "when sheep ate men" or ideas of the company store? yeah, that.

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
46. I've heard Republicans say that if US workers want to compete with Chinese workers
Tue Oct 30, 2012, 06:27 PM
Oct 2012

they have to be paid the same. So I assume $1 an hour or whatever Chinese workers get. Plus no workplace protection.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How Low Would Pay Go If M...