Raise to 15 Bucks, Loose the 401K

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush...?

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded - here and there, now and then - are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

-Robt. Heinlein

This quote is becoming dated....Automation is taking hold and machines make life easier in every sector....Some day machines will be the impoverished class...

Probably not as there is a segment of people that are far more experienced with being destitute than machines could ever hope to be.

I don't know I've seen some pretty sad cases....

I saw a news clip on this story and the reporter noted that many of these newer wage earners were actually requesting that their boss reduce their hours. apparently once you pass a weekly threshold your rent/food stamp subsidies get reduced.you surely don't want to pay for that!

AH,

I think that SolarEagle meant that picture to be an example of impoverished machines not evidence of a person living in poverty.

Ah! Silly me.

I find this very hard to believe that one third of households are receiving welfare....I don't know of anybody....wouldn't that mean that on average every third person at the checkout at the local supermarket would be using food stamps? Ask the cashier what percentage of customers use food stamps and report back....

47 million on food assistance

"The most recent data indicates about 15.7 million American households are on food stamps, with enrollment varying greatly from state to state.

The number of participants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, climbed steadily beginning with the arrival of the Great Recession. Enrollment has since stabilized, declining slightly in 2013.

As a share of all households, Oregon (19.8 percent), Mississippi (19.4 percent) and Maine (18 percent) had the highest SNAP participation rates in 2013, according to Census estimates. Wyoming (5.9 percent) recorded the lowest SNAP participation rate of any state.

SNAP participation rates differ greatly by state, partially due to to differences in eligibility requirements and how states administer SNAP. Nationwide, the Census Bureau estimates that 13.5 percent of all households received SNAP benefits at some point in 2013."

"The population of the United States is estimated at 322,583,006 as of July 1 2014. "

I put the percentage of American population on food assistance at ~14.5%...

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/food-stamp-snap-benefits-enrollment-participation-totals-map.html

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/food-stamp-beneficiaries-exceed-46000000-38-straight-months

Right, that's around 14.5% of the population....

I think that reasoning is flawed. Just because mom signed up for benefits you are saying that the kids do not participate?

I'm pretty sure that number represents the number of people that are signed up or enrolled in the program, but families do not sign up every family member that the program supports, just the head of the household.

I can check that tonight when the wife returns. She would know.

14.5% of the population or the households in the US?

Number of food stamp beneficiaries.

I don't know the accuracy of that data, but is shows that the decline in benefits has reversed again.

The number of households they cite is better than 19%.

Regardless how you shake the numbers it is becoming a pathological problem.

Just found this USDA link and it supports the claims of the first link.

This has shot up from about 5% since the recession hit in 2008....Yes that's percentage of population...

I am thinking that is the number of heads of households, but I will check.

I checked with the wife.

The way is appears to work is the head of household applies for the food stamp card.

The number of individuals living in that household that are declared as dependents of the head of household determines the total amount of funds given to the household.

Than means that the actual number of recipients of benefits from food stamps is far higher than the number of actual applications. That's why the percentage of actual beneficiaries is higher than 14.5%

Example: Molly applies for food stamps as head of household (one applicant), but she has three children, so the actual number of beneficiaries is 4 instead of one.

So, that means that the percentage could be 4 times the 14.5% number?

"So, that means that the percentage could be 4 times the 14.5% number?"

Not necessarily. Wouldn't that depend on the the average household size of the recipients?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the true number of people getting benefits.

Here in Nevada (Las Vegas) when I see the people redeeming their SNAP benefits, I typically see them with 2 to 4 children so I guess the average would be 3 children and an adult so the number would be 4?

So what is the true percentage of actual bodies that receive the benefits?

And with the benefits increasing with every child they produce, why would they look for a job when everything they need is being given to them with no expectation of them ever paying it back.

A coworker lives near a "weekly" rental apartment and one of the women there was always asking them for rides, smokes, food, drinks, and medication. Everything she was trying to "borrow" (she never repaid anything in return) was something that was being provided for her by the state!

She would get her card filled up, sell the card for 50 cents on the dollar and go out gambling and if you gamble, the casino gives you free drinks so this woman would be drunk and broke the first week (sometimes only a day) after she received her benefits.

Oh! Yes, she had 2 children which she would leave alone and go out drinking and gambling. Yes she was reported to child welfare.

This is all too common and probably worse here in Nevada with the gambling and free booze?!?!

My point is that these benefits are being wasted on people that are scamming the system and draining the resources that others who are in true need could use!

Yup, that's a problem alright. The sad thing is that not only is she cheating the tax payers, the way the system is set up enables her to be self destructive.

The intent (so those who support SNAP and other federally provided forms of welfare) is to help the individuals who are poor and destitute. It seems such seems are really helping individuals become poor and destitute.

"...wouldn't that mean that on average every third person at the checkout at the local supermarket would be using food stamps?"

I think that would depend on which supermarket you frequent. For instance, we shop at Publix (I think they are mainly just in the South East USA). It's more upscale than the average grocery store. I doubt there is as high a percentage of food stamps users as one might find at Walmart.

Also, I don't know if you as a casual customer will notice others using food stamps. I may be wrong on this as I don't know for sure, but I think it's just a debit card now and therefore the users are not shamed at the checkout in front of the cashier, bag boy (or girl or person), or other customers. Back when I was a bag boy, it was not difficult to tell who was using food stamps as you could see by what they handed the cashier.

stamps are rarely used....now it looks like a debit card, works the same way

Yeah, that's what I thought. So someone using a welfare debit card appears the same as me using my debit card when paying for our groceries.

you dont want a freeloader to feel guilt when bilking the taxpayers!

SNAP cards are not hard to spot, each state has their own design....

Florida SNAP card....

They may not be hard to spot....as long as you know what you're looking for.

I had never seen a SNAP debit card, or I should say, I never knew what one looked like until now. I live in Florida and if anyone in line pulled out a card looking like the one you show, I would have had no idea it was any different than any other debit card. First, I don't look at other's cards closely enough to even see that it's not a credit card (vs debit card). And second, I think it's easier for one to be discrete with a card compared to what previously was used for food stamps.

perhaps but if you take a "minimum wage attitude" that's what you'll get, if you're valuable you'll be paid for that value

Well I think this ennui is brought about by weltschmerz...in other words people are just being overwhelmed...

what's even worse more and more we see politicians who "buy votes" by promising this crowd extended unemployment benefits......over and over, free education free food and debt relief. I'm sure a free house with a Ferrari in the garage isn't a far off promise.

Mikerho,

I think you can expound on your comment!

Whaaaa... You want more?

End Poverty Wages - Get an Education

I am of the firm opinion we need "workfare" not "welfare" because welfare destroys morals, morale, and personal incentive to be a productive member of society.

I wholeheartedly agree!!!!!

you live in Nevada so you may have heard similar accounts as I have in So Cal of people learning well in advance of illegally crossing the border having their entire "financial package" researched, sometimes including a buddy who has an under the table job arraigned for them at a restaurant or landscaping place. the know the drill before they even cross....which is a magnet!

You are right! My remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek - somewhat.

A significant cause of poverty can be traced back to the individual. Usually it is their personal life choices and personal character that determines their social position.

I know many theorize differently, that their plight is the fault of their environment and social injustice. I think that the last $22 trillion spent on the war on poverty is disproving that theory since the percentage of poor has essentially been unchanged for the last 50 years.

Also, the figures cited for the poor are very misleading. I was dirt poor, too, once. I worked jobs that paid minimum wages, worked as a restaurant dishwasher, security guard, or whatever it took to make money while I began the process to educate myself so that I could be worth much more to employers than someone that operates simply from the neck down.

The truth is, most of us have done the same, which means that for many of the people that fall into the category of poor it is simply a transitional phase in life.

It's true that many others make a career out of being poor and the system sadly encourages people to do that.

When I was much younger I too thought being in poverty was directly related to personal choice.

Over the years I have learned otherwise.

I have encountered many wonderful poor people during my lifespan that despite their best efforts to learn advanced tasks and/or complicated information simply cannot do so.

Their simple minds are not capable of processing nor remembering what is needed to be successful at completing challenging tasks and they struggle hard.

Many work hard while others give up and quit trying.

To me there is no shame in being limited to performing simple labor however where the real shame lies is with those that are capable but exert no effort to be successful.

SHOCKHISCAN,
To me there is no shame in being limited to performing simple labor however where the real shame lies is with those that are capable but exert no effort to be successful.
There are a lot of passionate responses here.

Very well put.

I was lucky and grew up in an upper middle class household. However as my father owned several business so i was slave labor that did not make minimum wage. It taught me value and effort and there is no instant payback.

Just last week i had one of my employees quit and she went back to college to complete her nursing degree. Here she was stuck with no advancement and had the potential to accomplish much more than i could offer, more power to her.

Its not what you have, its what you do with what you have.

"There are a limited quantity of jobs requiring an education degree..."

True there may be a limited quantity of jobs, but if one makes the choice not to educate him/herself then they have pretty much guaranteed they one even be considered for one of those limited jobs let alone be hired for one.

I think one problem in our society is that so many have come to believe that one can provide for a family (or even oneself) working in some low paying jobs. Working in a fast food restaurant has always been a low paying job. Growing up (and I didn't grow up around a bunch of wealthy or even middle aged folks), I knew of no one who had any expectation that working at a fast food place was anything other than a stepping stone or temporary source of a small income while they pursued a path to getting a job they could support a family with (i.e. training/education or whatever).

Most cashiers I worked with when I was in high school, were house wives. They were not trying to support a family, but worked to supplement the husband's income. The same goes for the food service industry. Most waitresses (I didn't encounter many waiters back then) were working to get extra money while in school, or if they were older were supplementing the spouses income (vacation money, extra clothing, etc.). Also, many folks used to work two or three low paying jobs. It may be hard and suck, but there's nothing wrong with hard work.

Now everyone seems to be under the impression that every job should pay enough to support a family.

"I am of the firm opinion we need "workfare" not "welfare" because welfare destroys morals, morale, and personal incentive to be a productive member of society."

I am 100% agreement with you on that.

$560.00 + 25% "shared" tips of $140.00 = $700 per month.

I think the tips assumption may be quite a bit low as they aren't tipped on their earnings as on the price of the meals served. In your example, the waitress would earn $7 per day in tips. ($140 / 20 work days in a month). That doesn't seem to be believable or I'm a crazy over-tipper! She's likely to get that per table (a $40 check with a 20% tip = $8).

(Unless i'm greatly underestimating how many "share" her tips.)

Shockhiscan stated: "+ 25% "shared" tips of $140.00 = $700 per month" ....

As someone who worked tables, I say that anyone who waits tables fulltime and only gets $140 a week in tips is lying about their tips or should not be employed in that position. Most people who get tips grossly under-report their tips. (Yes, I did too) And since the employer also pays half of the fica/medcar on CLAIMED tips, the revenue to the government is lower than it should be.

Changing subjects:

We were poor when I was a kid, and there was no food stamps, nor SNAP cards. According to your household size and income, one received SURPLUS FOOD: flour, cornmeal, butter, lard, peanut butter, dehydrated eggs, powdered milk, canned ham, pork or beef - etc. (So did public schools for their lunch programs)

We no longer received those benefits when they were phased out in favor of "food stamps", but I think that program should have stayed. Alledgedly people were "too embarassed" to have to go to a distribution point (the Armory in my town) and be seen getting free food. Well, as a hungry family truly in need, it didn't bother us a damn bit. It was food, not shame.

Maybe we need a little shame in this country today, but with Political Correctness, you're not allowed to make anyone "feel bad".

</rant>

How many of these fast food workers have a college degree plus $50,000 in student loan debt?

Usually those with a degree in something that employers don't need or want.

Here is my guess!

Sure, but how many of these kids grew up with the myth that a college degree was an automatic pass to the "Good Life"?

How many of these people are working at minimum wage jobs because their career was outsourced to China?

How many of these people are working at minimum wage jobs because they would rather work at anything, than be a slave to the welfare system.

How many of the giant corporations that pay their workers minimum wages with minimum benefits post million dollar profits each quarter?

Greg,

I agree completely!

All very valid questions / statements.

Outsourcing has been a boom to corporations and a bust to workers. U.S.A workers that is.

I applaud anyone that has a job and is trying very hard to support themselves and / or a family.

It's the scum suckers that fry my chaps, contribute nothing and expect everything!

The last time I tried to get unemployment benefits, I was turned down flat because they said I made too much money in the past year. I finally got a part time job and was laid off after 6 months and then was able to get SOME unemployment benefits but it was less than 1/4th of what a kid that was fired from Jack in the Box was getting. He was getting the MAX and collected for 2 years. I lost my paltry benefit after 4 months.

Tell me how that works.

In my working career:

• I have collected less than 2 weeks of unemployment benefits from California in the 1980's.
• I have collected less than 4 months of unemployment benefits in Nevada in 2011.
• I have paid into the system since I was 15 years old and am 50 now. 35 years of contribution and less than 5 months return.
• Not a very good return on investment!!!!!

"It's the scum suckers that fry my chaps, contribute nothing and expect everything!"

These "scum suckers" are not working for minimum wages. They are either on welfare or CEOs of big corporations.

Unemployment benefits in your country,,, here we call it "employment insurance". The name change came about because there may have been a stigma attached to the word "unemployed". In any event, the premiums we pay do not gaurantee employment or collection of payments from same. Over my working carreer, I have collected a total of 6 weeks of payments, far less than the contributions I and my employers have made over the last 48 years.

It all boils down the "social safety net" both our countries have created over the years. Increasing the minimum wage may help some people, but as suggested elsewhere,, more harm than good may happen.

Something else we deal with is "wage parity", i.e., equal pay for work of equal value. Everyone's job has a value, but the rules for establishing parody of wages are very vague.

How many of these people are working at minimum wage jobs because their career was outsourced to China? very few. blaming competition when a slacker gets smacked by reality is a cop out. China will be less and less of a factor.as I've already stated, be a value to an employer and you'll get paid

You think so?

My daughter is $65K in the hole for her BS degree. What does her job pay now she has a degree? That apparently magical number of $15/hour. Take her current wage and remove the monthly payment required to pay off the school loans, and she is making exactly what she did before the education, and about what the fast food workers are making before the legislated raise.

Are you saying that she would be better off without an education?

I have no idea what her degree is in, what kind of a person she is, where she lives, or what and how much her ambitions are. So, having spent $65,000 dollars tells us nothing.

The bottom line is, people are paid for what's between their ears and how well they can use it.

However, if what you have invested in between the ears is not in demand, then you have no right to expect someone to throw money at you.

This is the way it has been since the roots of time. Education isn't a passport to collect wealth at the mailbox, it's just a tool. Like any tool you have to make sure you have the right one in your hand and you have to have the drive and skill to know how to wield it.

Sorry to hear about your daughter's situation. Some questions:

• Why is she $65k in the hole for her education?
• Whose fault is that?
• What is her education in?

I don't mean those last two questions in a sarcastic or flippant in any way, but is that her fault for choosing a path that had a low probability of job placement or was a low paying career? Or was it due to society changing to where the field she went into became less valuable?

I realize an education is expensive. Why is it so expensive? It's a result of government intrusion and folks being willing to give up future earnings to have something today without an understanding of what that means for the future.

1. Politicians (and many voters) push for the federal government to subsidize higher level education.
2. Universities see an increase in money available for education so they raise their tuition
3. When faced with paying a huge amount for an education, students many times will accept huge debt without seriously considering alternatives such as:
1. less expensive school,
2. different field of study,
3. stretching it out and paying for it as one goes along,
4. all of the above

My parents didn't help me other than to allow me to live with them for a small fee (pay for phone and food). I worked full time most or all of my college time, went to a community college for the first two years (instead of the where I wanted to go because the cost difference per credit hour was $56), stretched the remainder out for four more years (part of the stretch was being in the Coop program beginning my senior year which extended graduation another 12 months, but also allowed me to earn money to pay for school). In the end, I graduated in 1986 owing less than $2,000 ($4,355 in 2015 dollars).

$65K was the cost. We paid the last $10K for her.

She's 34 and worked the whole time she earned her degree, but at "fast food wages", which barely pay your cost of living, plus her job for a non-profit social service required her to travel daily, with no compensation for such. At her age, we certainly weren't going to foot the bill - we are ready to retire. She moved out many years ago and did not want to move back in with us, nor did we want that. Peace and quiet becomes addictive after a time.

Her education is in food nutrition or some such thing. It wasn't engineering so I never had to help her with homework - therefore I missed the actual name of the major. (yeah - I'm a Sheldon Cooper type - not technical enough for me - I don't pay attention) I do know she's qualified to choose diets and plan meals for institutionalized people, which is pretty close to what she is doing now.

She chose a field where she was hired immediately, but at low pay. It's what she wants to do, and is far more likely to earn her pay than her primary love - art. I am glad she didn't major in that.

I can't believe the change in educational costs. I returned to school (a highly accredited major state university) in 1975 to get into the physics advanced degree program (I has a BSEE and needed the missing physics and math courses) and only paid about $2400/year for an overload credit schedule. We were on the term not semester system then and full load was 12 credits and I did 15 credits/term for 4 terms. So if I had gone back to get a full degree program that would have cost me (actually my wife - she paid my way through) about $7200, with the overload reducing time to 3 years. The $7200 would be $32544 in 2015 dollars. Education has doubled in cost in "real dollars". You must be onto something with your analysis of why educational costs are so high now.

This is truly what the sign should read!!!!!!!

And for them there is funemployment.

I see a definite need to do something about the fraud in food stamps / EBT.

These people get their card filled up and then sell the funds for fifty cents on the dollar so they can get cash to buy drugs!

Its my belief that if you increase the minimum wage then the general price of everything will increase correspondingly.

That has been my argument all along! Thank you!

• Minimum wage is now $15 / hr.
• Basically doubled the wages of an entry level wage!
• How much more is a hamburger going to cost?
• The quality will drop also due to cost cutting.

I'm not sure how the quality could drop any further. The taste of a fast food burger is pretty much the same no matter where you go.

Hamburger flavored cardboard. I rarely eat fast food but when I must, I usually go for one of the "premium" burgers or a chicken sandwich.

The last time I ate at McDonalds and ate a burger, my mouth broke out in hives and I had a terrible burning sensation throughout my mouth. This was not a spicy burger and it did not add anything on it that would give that reaction.

It was a plain burger and it was disgusting!

I don't eat at MacDonald's. However i do like their iced coffee. I am a Vegan and i warn people about fast food. Some of MacDonald's premium burgers have upwards of 2400 mg of sodium.

I have made a few remarks here, but my primary complaint is not with the minimum wage as it exists, but rather with the limited maximum wages that most businesses, in particular large corporations, establish for their employees. In effect, they are telling their employees no matter how well you do your job, no much you contribute to the business, you can never get paid more than this.

I base this on my wife's experience working for a major fast food chain. When they opened a store in our neighborhood, she was hired at minimum wage. Quickly she developed a large following of regular customers because they liked her personality and the quality of her service. Her manager loved her because she was willing to step in and take care of whatever needed to be done. When her review came up, her manager gave her the maximum raise allowed. When her next review came up she was told "sorry, that is the most we can pay for your position". However, you can apply for an assistant manager position, but at a lower hourly rate.

That position is about as low as you can go. You have responsibility for the performance of the employees but absolutely no authority. The typical turnover for this position is about six months.

All I can suggest is that you try to lean more about economics.

Large corporations don't screw and underpay their employees. They pay what the market bears for those employees.

Large corporations may make millions and even billions of dollars, but when the quarter is up have a look at their spreadsheets (they are available fro all public corporation in the US). Their profits are no different than any other corporation and sometimes less.

Working hard and failing to get recognized for it is not just the company's fault. As long as you keep working there you are enabling that behavior. So why would you expect it to change?

The idea that you can't get ahead in a large corporation is bunk. If you really are the wonder kid on the payroll they will find a way to employ that talent where it serves them best and pay you well enough to keep you.

Ask any of the senior level executives with the big salaries how they got there since most started at the bottom.

I apologize for coming off like this, but success is possible. It's just more work than most people are willing to put out, which is a shame because they never realize how much more they have in them and how rewarding it is to overcome the obstacles they pine about.

Perhaps part of the reason businesses decide on maximum wages is because they are forced to provide minimum wages.

A business (individual operating a store or a large corporation) doesn't just arbitrarily decide to set the wage for a particular job position. They decide what they think it's worth to hire someone to do it. Over time, they may find out they either can't find anyone to do that job for the wage they want to pay, or that they are overwhelmed with applicants willing to do that job for the wage they are willing to pay or something in between.

In the first case, the business will have to decide if they are willing to pay more to have that job performed or just not have that job (perhaps spread those duties to other positions)...essentially everyone is over qualified (or thinks they are) or the job is too dangerous to compensate for the risk. Eventually they will raise the offered wage up to a point they find someone willing to work for that wage. Of course this step gets distorted due to minimum wage laws which don't allow businesses to pay an unskilled worker what they are really worth. So the business may hire someone and pay them more than they are worth, or the unskilled tasks become part of a higher skilled worker's task load thus making that worker actually over paid.

In the second case, the business may realize that the supply of workers is high enough that they could lower the offered wage and still be able to attract a large enough number of applicants to allow them to select a competent worker.

It's supply and demand. If no workers will do the work for a given amount, then the amount is too low. Similar with purchasing materials or other resources.

Unfortunately, instead of the government setting maximum or minimum wages it ought to be regulating trade more effectively and the things that allow business to utilize resources from other countries (i.e. outsourcing) at a cost to it's own.

"In effect, they are telling their employees no matter how well you do your job, no much you contribute to the business, you can never get paid more than this"

Yes and no. It sucks that the company your wife works for was short sighted and didn't realize the value she brought to the business. However, perhaps that value (customers that were overly satisfied) was not worth more to the company than what they paid your wife.

One problem with large corporations (and governments or probably any organization, especially those that span multiple states and time zones) are how to deal with local issues (i.e. rewarding a fantastic employee). At some point, your wife has to decide whether she values her time more than what they are paying her. Of course if her skill set is such that no one else will hire her for more than a given amount, then she can either stop working and get paid $0/hour, keep working hard and doing a good job and live with what they pay her, try to find some business who will pay more, or do something to increase her worth.

Just because her bosses boss doesn't see that a customer focused employee is good for the company doesn't mean another company won't. So why continue working there?

Also, what happens to that particular fast food restaurant if your wife would quit and they hired someone less customer friendly to take her place? Does their sales go down? Stay the same? If it goes down then the business made a mistake...if it stays the same....what does that say?

They should have seen this coming:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/seattle-socialist-city-council-kshama-sawant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshama_Sawant

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/27/22472667-seattles-socialist-councilwoman-to-accept-less-than-half-of-117k-salary

I do not expect my pay to increase because the minimum wage increases, in fact I would expect my salary to be more static with less available capital.

And I would expect my costs to increase, more expensive food, more expensive hotel rooms, more expensive garbage pick up.

If I wanted to live like a Socialist I would move to a Socialist Country. Please stop messing this one up.

I know many people who would be happy to work and learn a trade for who cares how much money. But they may never get a chance because there is no way they are valuable enough to be paid $15/hr starting out. So instead they will live on Socialist Dregs.

Nobody starts here (construction, real estate management, AE design/project management) at less than $10.00. With weekly reviews being favorable, by six weeks, most (80+%) are at $15.00 per hour. The fringes start kicking in at three months. We are strong on fringes because our very high workers' comp rates are base salary determined. About one-third of our hourly hires do not make it past six weeks, most gone by our choice.

A retired school principal friend in Puget Sound with multiple ex-student/ex-faculty contacts in the SeaTac area says the employer push back is more the exception than the rule. A living wage is a living wage, but the production has to be there for the living wage to work both ways.

Your scenario sounds pretty typical, not as many people earn minimum wages as most people think they do.

But I do not recall anyone stating that the Minimum Wage is supposed to be a Living Wage.

A Living Wage would be wages you could make a living on. A Minimum Wage would be wages you could earn if you could not add additional value to an employer so they could pay you more. And a Minimum Wage is what you could earn until you learned enough skills or talents to get a promotion or a wage increase.

I do not see anything wrong with paying a young kid $5.00/hr to clean up around a fabrication shop and let him/her learn the skills of welding/fabricating. Then when they can add value, hire them as a welder/fabricator and hire some new kid to sweep the floor until they learn skills that pay more money.

Especially if that young kid wants to work for $5.00/hr with the hope of learning higher skills that earn higher wages.

But at a $15.00/hr minimum, there will be no young kids sweeping floors and picking up scrap metal or cleaning up behind a shear.

It costs a whole lot more to hire someone at $15.00/hr than $15.00/hr.

"But I do not recall anyone stating that the Minimum Wage is supposed to be a Living Wage."
Pretty much most of those advocating for the MW to jump to $15/hour are.

Minimum wage was not created to be a living wage for anyone.

It was created as an ENTRY LEVEL wage to give young people experience in the workforce and money for school or gas for their car.

If someone procured a job at min. wage then if they were motivated enough and got an education then they usually moved up into a higher wage job with more responsibilities.

This gives employers a look at the employee and their motivation in the job without investing a lot of money.

• Work hard = earn more $$
• Get educated = earn more $$$
• Work hard and get educated = move up and earn more $$$$$
• Sit on your butt = minimum wage
• Slack off = minimum wage
• Keep slacking off = you're fired!

Simple as that. Minimum wage = ENTRY LEVEL JOB!