From the Argus Leader:
An increase in the federal minimum wage could put work study programs in a bind at schools such as the University of Sioux Falls and Augustana College, where wages start anywhere from $5.75 to $6.25 an hour.
"If the wage increase does go through, and there aren't funds to cover (the program), there would have to be cuts across campus," said Emily Studenski, Augustana work study program coordinator and assistant financial aid director. "But we aren't projecting seeing that at this point. We hope to keep the impact to our students at a minimum. It's all just if's and when's."
What? A sweatshop at an institution of higher learning? This is outrageous!!! Why isn't Augustana paying a living wage?
They should be able to pay a living wage without cutting anything out, just like those evil businesses can! What's wrong with our academia these days?
3 comments:
Things sure have changed. I remember doing work study at Augie just a few years ago and I think my pay check was just $5.25. But now the range is $5.75 to $6.25? Wow.
Work study isn't about a living wage, Bob. It's supposed to be a suppliment for students. You only work 9 hours a week. And most college kids don't have to worry about food and housing because they're living on campus. And if they want to live off campus, most get a part-time job somewhere.
When people talk about a living wage, they're refering to the people who work full-time jobs on minimum wage. In those situations, they have to deal with rent, bills, payments, groceries, etc. Those are the people who need the increase.
I know you don't want an increase to the minimum wage, but there's nothing you can say that will convince me it's a bad idea. Yes it will be hard and will require people to make changes. But sometimes the things that are worth doing in this life don't come easily.
When you talk about minimum wage, you mean all 35 of them in South Dakota? Because that's what a study about a year or so ago showed: 35 people in SD making minimum wage.
Other studies have shown that the majority of people making minimum wage are teen-agers and unskilled workers just starting out.
I knew when I posted this that somehow many "living wage" proponents would see this differently...when it really isn't.
Ultimately, my opposition to the minimum wage and minimum wage increases is on principle. When one person works for another, they contract with one another to exchange labor for money. No one is forcing the employee to work in a particular job for a particular employer; it is a contract freely entered into. The government shouldn't force the employer to pay $X wages for a contract freely entered into. The government doesn't know if that job--or the particular quality of the labor being gained from that individual--is worth $X. Only the employer knows that.
And if the employee doesn't like the wages being paid by the employer, they are free to seek employment--and better wages--elsewhere.
People also have the freedom to educate and train themselves to get better jobs. That's one of the things that makes the American system so great: your opportunity is limited only by...you.
The government has no business telling an employer they must pay at least $X in wages, regardless of the value or quality of the work.
When they do, prices go up for consumers (including the one who just got a "raise"), and/or people get fired, and/or others who might have been hired don't get hired. In the end, nothing is gained except a few unthinking people who get to feel good for no real reason, and a lot of money gets wasted in the process.
Here's another point to ponder, Haggs.
You strongly imply that the need of the worker is more important than the quality or market value of his work. Let's turn that around.
Let's say you by something (a car, a TV, whatever) and when you get it home, it breaks. You bring it back and the seller tells you, "But I have a family to feed and housing to pay for. I had to cut corners on production and sell you an inferior product to meet my needs." Does that work for you? Will you go on your merry way, knowing you have helped someone needy?
Or let's say you hire someone to build a house for you. They charge you far more than the house is worth, and then after you move in, you find that it's already falling apart due to shoddy work. When you confront the builder, he tells you, "I didn't know how to do it better. I haven't had much experience building houses, but I needed the job and the income to pay for my needs." Will you then bless him and go away feeling good that you have helped someone in need?
If you believe the need of the worker is more important than the value or quality of the employee's work, then I'm assuming you'll answer "Yes" to both of these scenarios.
Of course an employer should be fair with an employee. The vast majority already are. Even the demonized Wal-Mart starts their employees above minimum wage.
But unless you're willing to happily receive the lousy service in kind like the scenarios above, then your assertion that value/quality is irrelevant and the gov't should dictate the value of labor regardless of its quality is illogical at best.
Post a Comment