They're Crappy Jobs, But Someone Has to Do Them

The push has been on of course, for some time, to hike the minimum wage, and in many states, they've done exactly that. The most recent one in California, where the state's minimum wage was raised to $20 an hour, has made quite a lot of news— for a variety of reasons, and not all of it good.

Most states will have their minimum wages set at around $15 an hour, with my own state, Illinois, being at that rate by next year.

Honestly, I come from a couple of sides on this idea. As most things tend to be, it's a more complex issue than most people realize. It's easy for me to blanketly say, "I am opposed," and generally I am. Because it is a complex issue.

There's more to consider than just the quality of life for the employees who are impacted by lower wages. Because there's one underlying thought here. Does a higher wage actually have a positive effect on the quality of life for the employees?

I contend that it doesn't, because more often than not, financial woes are the result of personal choices and lack of financial education than it is the result of how much one makes. In order to improve the quality of life for these people, you have to first change the habits that are the root of their problems. 

But of course, no one is going to do that. It's much easier to just hand someone a few more bucks and wash your hands of any future dirt.

The biggest consideration is where the money comes from. Because money doesn't grow on trees and it has to come from somewhere, and unfortunately, the pockets of the businesses aren't as deep as many people tend to think they are.

It's mostly going to come from consumers. Or, in some cases, it's going to come from businesses pulling back on their labor. Either they will find more ways to automate and reduce staffing, or they'll close locations altogether to make up the difference.

At the same time, I do fully recognize that the difference between the wages earned, and basic needs being met have to come from somewhere as well.

Taxpayers will have to pony up on that one.

It used to be that jobs like retail and fast food were secondary jobs or entry level jobs, or just simply jobs that older people used to supplement their retirements. They were never intended to be careers. I think they probably still shouldn't be.

That being said, there is some truth to the idea that these jobs now make up a large number of all jobs, and so it becomes a question of whether or not we should consider these occupations similarly to other ones. 

Between Walmart, McDonald's, Burger King, and Target, they employ around 2.6 million people combined, in the United States. But consider that in the entire restaurant industry in the U.S., 12.5 million people hold these kinds of jobs. 9.8 million people work in retail.

The labor participation rate as of April of 2024 was roughly 62.7%, meaning that fast food and retail jobs account for around 11% of the total workforce.

But there are many other types of jobs such as secretarial work, certain manufacturing jobs and receptionists and call center workers who are also paid close to, or slightly higher than, these state minimum wages. So, the actual number of employees in this wage range are actually representative of a much higher percentage of the total participating workforce.

A full-time worker at these wages will earn somewhere around $31,200 a year, which is $28,028 below the average per worker income of $59,228. Median household income is roughly $78,238, meaning a household with two workers in fast food or retail would pull in roughly $62,400 or $15,800 less than other average households per year.

Raising the minimum wage even higher than $15 could help to at least close the gaps. But again, at what cost? Right now the average cost of living in the U.S. is just under $70,000 a year. It can be presumed that higher wages would lead to higher costs, and thus, closing the gap would be a moot point because the cost of living would raise proportionate to the cost of the higher wages.

So, what do you do? Frankly it becomes sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of a situation.

I think the emphasis should be on financial education so that any working American is afforded not just an opportunity to earn a wage, or even a livable one, but can actually grow financially. Because it goes back to a saying I cite often, that it doesn't matter as much how much you make as it matters what you do with what you make.

While I am not for arbitrarily raising wages, I do take into consideration that just because these jobs require very little in terms of actual skills, they are still jobs we need to be able to fill. We have to have these workers if we want our lattes and doughnuts and Whoppers—or if we want to have more than two or three lanes open at checkouts.

Someone has to do these jobs, and perhaps working in them should not be a sort of punishment.

But going back around full circle, we also cannot expect the money to simply materialize out of thin air. We have to consider the actual balance sheets of the businesses impacted by paying the higher wages. If they can't function, or go under, no one benefits. Not the workers, and certainly not the consumers who want to be able to patronize these businesses.

When we consider wages, we have to be cognitive of all of the impacts of it. On workers. On consumers. On the businesses. And on the taxpayers. Because when we raise wages, it impacts everyone.

Everyone deserves a good quality of life if they are putting in the work. But you can't take from Peter to pay Paul in order to do it. You can't just pick a number off the top of your head and say, "Okay, we'll pay that." And you also cannot assume that the wage is the only problem to solve.

Because again, it's complicated.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Bling And Yang Equals Bull Plop

Enter onto the democratic stage Mr. Andrew Yang, running for President of the United States, and marking himself as the next best thing to the current President Donald Trump. He is not a politician, but a serial entrepreneur. But fear not. We can see what happens when a non-politician becomes master of the White House. Of course I am a Donald Trump supporter, and it is no secret that I actually think when all is said and done, not only will Donald Trump easily slide into another four years as president, but he may go down in history as one of the best presidents we have ever had the privilege of knowing. I think he could easily stand along guys like Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. And hey, because I am a fair guy, let's not forget John F. Kennedy. Historically he was also not a bad president at all. Just because he happened to have had a "D" next to his name does not automatically, to my mind, disqualify him from having been an excellent occupier of the People's House.

I am simply saying that it does not matter anymore, as Trump has proven, that you have to have political credentials in order to be an effective president.

But let's be clear as well. Just because you are NOT a politician does not automatically mean you are qualified to BE a president.

As of right now I think it is important to note that I don't think Andrew Yang has a fleeting chance in Hell to ever see the interior walls of the White House. But let's set that aside for a moment because there is something about what he is wanting to do—what his primary offering is to the People—that I find interesting.

Ludicrous. But interesting.

This election cycle on the democratic side as a whole will essentially turn out be a referendum on socialism, or a variation of forms of it. This is literally a campaign that will be about capitalism vs. socialism.

Now, while there are a few guys (and gals) on the stage denouncing socialism and rightly stating that if this is all the democrats are going to run on, the election is already over—I agree with that sentiment, by the way—those voices are few and far between. Interestingly enough, right now for whatever it is worth, I don't think the current front runner, Joe Biden, is one of those voices calling for socialism. But that's for another day.

The fact is that among the current 20 or so contenders in the game, the platform of most of them is simply to give something away. Name your prize: free healthcare, free education, amnesty for illegal immigrants, free and open borders...you name it.

And lo and behold, who will all of this free stuff come from? Ah, there you have it again as always. The evil rich people and the greedy corporations they run.

Forget for a moment that it is simply a fact that not a single democrat will acknowledge that even if you confiscated every single dime of the rich you'd still not be able to cover the damages on any of these things, let alone pay for current spending or pay off any of the debt we have.

So ultimately, even if THEY don't want to admit it (the democrats) the regular folks are still going to have to cough up for the lion's share of anything that might be "free."

But back to Yang. He wants to give every single American $1,000 per month. Sort of an idea along the lines of this whole "universal income" a lot of (let's be frank) whacko's having been talking about for a couple of years now.

Isn't that simply a subsidy? I mean, essentially that's what it is, right? A subsidy. Why has the cost of healthcare risen the way it has? Why has college tuition risen the way it has? Why did the cost of houses rise so rapidly during the real estate bubble?

It's simple folks. Anytime someone knows there is extra money out there to be had, they are going to take it. 

If I own a house and my tenant tells me he just got a huge pay raise, wouldn't I probably consider at the next rental raise that perhaps that tenant might be able to afford to pay $10-$20-$30 a month more?

Probably. I know he's got the money and so I know he can afford to pay a little more. 

This is the way the entire world works. Why do you think we track things like median income in this country? And who do you think is paying attention to that? Everybody knows what people have to spend. The oil companies, the cable companies, the phone companies, the grocery stores and food manufacturers...everyone. And they also know about what percentage of income any of these things should be, and so they also now what they are "entitled" to. Or maybe not entitled to. But they certainly know what is reasonably attainable from your pocket to theirs.

Why do you think so many people tend to live paycheck to paycheck? I mean, yes, there is a large part of the population that is simply inept when it comes to how to manage money properly. I have spoken about this for years. But, it also happens to be in part because these companies largely know what's out there and available for the taking, and so they adjust their prices accordingly, and unless you are wise to that fact, you will be hard pressed to ever get ahead of that little game that is being played on you.

So, what happens when you suddenly come into an extra $1,000 per month? What happens when those companies know all too well that there is an extra $12,000 a year for each and every American over the age of 18 floating around? Or potentially an extra $24,000 per household now in those wallets?

They simply take it.

If there is extra money in each and every single American's pocket, all that is going to happen is that the cost of every single good or service we buy will go higher. It's just the way it works. It's part of what drives inflation in the natural order of the economy. When there is more money floating around and when people are making more money, the cost of good and services rise.

So what, Mr. Yang, would be the value in that $1,000? It would eventually simply wash itself out. Not to mention what it may also do to productivity. But that too is for another day. No one is actually going to come out ahead. That money will simply be drained from your wallet just like virtually every dollar is drained right now. You would eventually have nothing to show for it, and there would be no gain.

Now, you also have to consider that someone has to pay for all that free money. Because it's really not free of course. Taxpayers would have to pay something to pay for it ultimately. So not only would the cost of goods and services rise, but so would your taxes washing out even more of that money. And if productivity is reduced, that potentially means less income tax revenue coming into the government coffers as well. So it's really a double whammy. No one gets ahead.

Long and short here, it's just a dumb idea no matter how you look at it. Sure, the thought of an extra $12,000 a year sounds appealing. Heck, for a guy like me who does not live paycheck to paycheck and who also makes a pretty decent living, there is a lot of appeal since I know I can likely take that $1,000 per month, save it, invest it, and gain handily on it—I can essentially game it and would indeed come out ahead even considering my examples as to how it would likely be a wash anyway.

But that's part of the point too. You see, people not having money is not really about society dealing a bad hand to the masses. It's not about unfairness or corporate greed or even low wages. It's about people not taking the time to improve their wealth, or having the knowledge to improve it. It's about people not understanding the value of money or understanding what it's intrinsic value happens to be over its in-front-of-you value.

So what happens if everyone gets that $1,000 per month? The haves and the have nots will be exactly where they started before they got the money. Nothing will change. The poor will simply be $12,000 a year poorer because they will simply spend the money and the rich will simply be richer because rich people know what to do with it—or frankly don't need it.

Part of the thing to think about here is that nobody has ever gotten better off by getting free money. Food stamp and welfare recipients don't see their lives improved. All of those folks who get more than they paid back in taxes every year do not get ahead. People who live on social security checks alone are almost all poor.

I don't think Andrew Yang has a chance to win anything, and I doubt anyone with even half a brain would think this idea makes an ounce of sense. But we shall see. At the end of the day all we need to do in this country to open doors of opportunity is to create an economic environment where that is conducive. And the good news is that is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what Trump is doing. Less regulation, better trade deals, lower taxes for citizens and corporations are all things that are fostering economic growth, higher stock market values, more consumer activity, and wage increases across the nation.

If you look at all of the numbers it is quite clear that everyone is benefiting from this new booming economy. Don't feel like you are one of the ones participating? Let's be clear about one other thing here. Your prosperity and your economic improvement is of course going to be proportionate. What if the growth in your personal wealth is 5%? That's great. But if I have more money than you do, of course my 5% is going to be worth more. Is the top 1% getting more bang for their buck? You bet they are. But they also have more skin in the game, and so it makes sense. Fair is everyone getting their fair share of their contribution.

At the end of the day, if we can keep this ship sailing ahead, none of us is going to need that extra $1,000 per month. If we keep this ship sailing, I bet we'll all see way more than that when all is said and done.

In other words, don't settle for a simple handout when the value of everything else happening right now, this very minute, has far more value. You take this money, you cast this vote for any of this free stuff, all you are doing is selling yourself short, and in the end all of us will lose.

Well, of us except for the government. When they get done with us, if they have their way, they will have the power to control every aspect of our lives because we will need them more than ever. Land of the free was not a motto for handouts. It was a motto for self-motivation and individual opportunity for happiness and prosperity. Never lose sight of that.

You Might Be Raising A Democrat If...

Perhaps it is a product of my own upbringing, coming up into the world from the School of Hard Knocks, that I form my opinion about life in general. I have no kids of my own. Not that my wife and I did not try, nor want them. It just wasn't in the cards for us. But I do have a brain, and I don't think for a second that not having kids means I don't understand what can fuel a generation of people into, if not believing in it, understanding the principles behind a society of living off of somebody else's dime and being completely content with that. And as is an undeniable tenet of liberal ideology having the compelling belief that one is entitled to something for nothing.

Let me start by citing at least one component I believe was true of what ultimately lead to the financial crisis of 2008, which also was a component in the whole Internet boom we saw in the 90's which lead to a crisis of its own. What was it? It was a belief that all along generations before the new generation were doing it wrong.

Hard work? You're doing it wrong. Starter home? You're doing it wrong. First car that spends more time in the shop than on the road? You're doing it wrong. Traditional 9 to 5 job? You're doing it wrong.

Of course, the blame cannot be laid completely on the kids. Parents who came up in the world, realizing the struggle and overcoming it through hard work vowed that if they ever had the means they would make their children's lives better. They will have what I could not have. It is as noble an idea conceptually as feeding the poor, or providing shelter to the homeless. All the while I think we all still fundamentally believe in the old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Except now we make exceptions, and there are many free lunches. And despite all of our efforts as parents to give a leg up to our children as they make their own way into the world, we in fact instead cripple them. And I think it is beginning to become quite clear that as a country and a society as a whole, we are also crippling the entire nation.

These children potentially become the liberal voting block that is growing and threatens the basic founding principles of the nation as a whole.

In life you are supposed to start off poor and struggling. You are supposed to have to drive beat up cars, live in small apartments, make your way up through the corporate ranks, have lousy first jobs, and these are the things that are supposed to make and shape you as a person. These are the things that are supposed to make you appreciate what you achieve once you arrive. And the struggle is what is supposed to get you off your duff to come up in the world and make something out of yourself.

The struggle is real. And the struggle is an integral part of it all. Without it, like a delicate ecosystem, if you take away the struggle, the entire process and system goes out of balance. And that is sort of a place we have arrived at in our current time.

What do we take away from our children when we do not allow them the struggle? Necessity. And here is another thing I think we all fundamentally still believe in, and that is that necessity is the mother of all invention. When you do not have food, and no other means to get it, you will learn to hunt—or you will learn ways to get money to buy it. All of the tools of the hunt, by the way, were invented out of the need to improve our odds at a kill. If the animals all simply fell dead at our feet would we have needed to bother to make arrows? Bows? Guns? Hell, cattle farms for that matter. None of these things would exist if we did not have the need for them.

The bottom line here is that the more we give of things rather than advice, life's experiences, and instilling the importance of why the struggle is necessary, the more we actually take away from the whole rewarding and life experience of our children. We can see examples of this in trophies handed to participants. Not winners. We can see this in examples of kids entering the workforce believing that working at Burger King is beneath them. We can see this in examples of kids being dissatisfied and slighted if they have to drive a 15-year old car for the first time in their driving career. We can see this in examples of kids who believe that their first real jobs in life should be professional careers rather than having to work their way into fields that pay better, and even to work on their own to pay for their own advancement in life in the workforce.

You need to get your hands dirty. You need to sweat a little bit. You need to arrive at home after work with sore arms, sore legs, and dog-tired. It makes you appreciate what you have. It makes you appreciate the achievements. And it makes you struggle and work harder to improve your own life and your own situation. It builds a strong society. It builds a strong character. It builds a strong work ethic. It creates a sense of drive and ambition. And all the while it makes life much more purposeful, and as we draw closer to the ultimate finish line, it makes us more proud to have lived. To have worked hard. To have struggled. And to have arrived. Even if not rich, not for lack of trying, it is better to reach the end having done everything we could have, on our own, than to have had it all handed to us.

I play the lottery. I want the money and the riches like anyone does. But I always say while I will gladly take the money for free, I'd much rather have my come-uppance by my own hand. It is much more rewarding. It is much more worthy. And one like myself would have to wonder; if I simply won the lottery and did not have to do anything else in my life, what else might I have otherwise accomplished that will never be known simply because I did not have to bother to do it?